On Energy, 2024 Voters Will Choose “Drill, Baby, Drill” or a Green Revolution

• Trump expanded US energy dominance with record oil, natural gas, and coal production

• Harris’ green policies in California led to higher energy costs and reliance on foreign oil

• Voters now face a choice between energy affordability and stricter environmental regulations

Where Trump stands

Donald Trump’s energy policy during his first term focused on maximizing America’s energy output and ensuring that American energy producers were not hampered by government regulations. As Trump often says on the campaign trail, his energy policy can be summed up in the words, “Drill, baby, drill.”

By 2018, the US had overtaken Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s top producer of crude oil. This achievement largely came about through the approval of pipeline projects like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access, as well as the removal of certain environmental restrictions that had held back energy expansion.

Trump centered his approach around creating jobs and reducing the nation’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

In addition to oil, Trump’s administration advanced the broader natural gas sector, turning the US into a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in 60 years. Trump has consistently argued that these energy exports serve a dual purpose: supporting allies, such as those in the European Union, and countering the influence of adversaries.

Trump’s administration also made strides in supporting the coal industry, which faced heavy regulations under President Barack Obama. In 2017, American coal exports surged by over 60 percent, as Trump rolled back restrictions and replaced the Clean Power Plan with the more industry-friendly Affordable Clean Energy rule.

According to Trump, these policies were critical in creating American jobs and protecting industries that he argued had been unfairly targeted by environmental regulations.

Looking ahead to a second term, Trump’s energy agenda remains focused on restoring America’s energy dominance by expanding oil and gas leases and reversing any restrictive climate policies implemented during the Biden-Harris years.

A major part of his 2024 campaign involves promoting fracking in states like Pennsylvania, and hammering Democrats like Kamala Harris for previously supporting fracking bans.

Fracking is a relatively new technology that injects high-pressure fluid into underground rock formations to release natural gas and oil, responsible for creating a new oil boom this century. However, it has faced setbacks due to concerns over water contamination, air pollution, and the increased potential for small earthquakes.

Where Harris stands

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has consistently supported stricter regulations on fossil fuels and left-wing green energy policies.

On day one of the Biden-Harris administration, the US signed back onto the Paris Climate Agreement, which Trump withdrew the nation from. Democratic politicians champion the Paris Accord, despite it being non-binding and the fact that countries like China and India contribute far more to global carbon emissions than Western nations.

Much of Kamala Harris’ current energy policy is mirrored on the crusade for “net zero” that she supported while in California. These policies led to steep increases in energy costs, with residents and cities like Baldwin Park eventually withdrawing from California’s green energy programs due to higher-than-expected utility bills.

Harris’ record on fracking is a focal point of contention, used by Donald Trump to demonstrate her willingness to change her positions based on political convenience. She has now become more pro-fracking to sway voters in Pennsylvania.

During her 2020 presidential campaign, she initially advocated for a complete ban on fracking, aligning with the progressive Green New Deal. Although her stance softened after becoming vice president, the Biden-Harris administration has still pushed for stricter regulations on fracking and placed limitations on new federal land leases for oil production.

And unlike Trump, who expanded Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports, Harris has been less vocal about her support for LNG. The Biden-Harris administration implemented a pause on new LNG export facilities, which critics argue is a step backward for an industry that employs countless Americans and provides essential energy resources for the rest of the world.

Progressive green and “net zero” initiatives have long been Kamala Harris’ goal, which has often led to higher energy costs and more reliance on foreign oil.

In fact, the Biden-Harris administration is responsible for a historic decrease in American energy production, which contributed to the massive spike in gas prices in 2021-2022. After facing backlash over high prices, they turned to foreign nations — including America’s adversaries — to increase production while also beginning to deplete the strategic oil reserves.

Why it matters

The enormously high gas prices Americans experienced at the beginning of the Biden-Harris term were not just an inevitable shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but a unique feature of their administration’s poor policymaking.

Trump’s policies prioritize energy production and creating jobs, while Harris’ approach seeks to limit oil and gas development in favor of renewable energy, which increases costs for working people and decreases US energy independence.

With Kamala Harris mirroring California’s net zero carbon and threatening to restrict American energy production, voters face a choice between energy affordability and a costly green revolution.