HomeEnvironment & Climate NewsDon’t Believe the Lies. Joe Biden Plans to Destroy Every Fracking, Oil,...
IT'S BACK: The Heartland Institute's Next CAN'T MISS Climate Conference spot_img

Don’t Believe the Lies. Joe Biden Plans to Destroy Every Fracking, Oil, and Coal Job in America

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has spent the better part of the past month Skyping across America—because, you know, it’s much too dangerous for Joe to actually leave his basement—telling everyone who will listen that he pinky swears that a Biden-Harris administration would not “ban” fracking.

It’s all a “lie,” Biden says, cooked up by President Trump and his allies to ruin Biden’s chances in key swing states where fracking plays an important role in the economy, especially Pennsylvania.

Even Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)—a notorious hater of fracking—has attempted to come to Joe’s defense. During the vice presidential debate earlier in October, telling Americans, “Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.”

Actually, Harris, it is absolutely not a “fact.” It’s a political promise, and an incredibly misleading one at that.

Follow the Evidence

Despite his constant pleas to the contrary, the available evidence strongly suggests Joe Biden would put policies into place that would result in the complete destruction of virtually all jobs related to fossil-fuel production in the United States, including the fracking jobs 32,000 Pennsylvania families are currently depending on to pay their bills, and the thousands of other jobs in the state associated with the natural gas and oil industries.

What’s the proof? Well, for starters, Biden has on numerous occasions promised voters on the campaign trail he will put America on the road to the elimination of fossil fuels. (If fossil fuel use is banned, then fracking would be totally unnecessary.)

For example, at a September 2019 campaign event in New Hampshire, he told one young girl, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuel …”

During the presidential debate on Thursday, Biden admitted he would impose a “transition from the oil industry.”

“Would he close down the oil industry?” Trump asked. “Would you close down the oil industry?”

“I would transition from the oil industry, yes,” Biden said. (“Transition” is political speak for “end,” “dismantle,” and “decimate.”)

Further, Biden’s own campaign website claims, “As president, Biden will lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example, by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.”

100 Percent Non-Fossil Fuel Economy

Biden’s website further promises, “On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025 …”

Imposing an “enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets” to push the entire country toward a “100% clean-energy economy” would require the end of nearly all fossil fuel use—and, again, that includes the natural gas and oil that comes from fracking.

Anti-Frackers Write Biden’s Energy Plan

Biden has also surrounded himself with environmental radicals who have for years called for truly radical alterations to the U.S. energy industry and American society.

Kamala Harris, for instance, co-sponsored—not merely supported—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) Green New Deal, and not some watered-down version of it, either. I’m talking about the cow-killing, end-of-air-travel, socialist version of the Green New Deal.

Biden also allowed Ocasio-Cortez, John Kerry, and the leadership of the eco-socialist Sunrise Movement to shape his policy platforms as members of the Biden-Bernie Sanders “Unity Task Forces.”

AOC, Kerry, and the Sunrise Movement, along with other Unity Task Force members, have demanded the end of fossil fuel use around the world—not just the United States—because they believe the carbon dioxide emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels are creating an “existential threat” to the entire human race.

If Joe Biden is such a big supporter of fracking, why would he permit so many people who loathe fracking and all fossil fuel production to help write his climate and energy platforms? And how, exactly, does Biden plan to keep the fracking industry alive while simultaneously putting policies in place meant to end the use of oil and natural gas?

Costly Carbon-Capture

The only answer that makes even a shred of sense came from Biden at the presidential debate on Thursday, when Biden said he would “make sure that we can capture the emissions from the fracking, capture the emissions from gas.”

Or, put another way, Biden is saying some fracking might be allowed to continue, so long as carbon-capture technology is used to suck up all of the carbon dioxide emissions.

There’s only one problem with this part of Biden’s plan—and it’s a doozy—the cost of carbon-capture technology is so high, and has been for its entire existence, that it would make all fossil fuel use completely unmarketable compared to other kinds of energy production.

So, is Biden planning to “ban” fossil fuels? In some cases, yes, and in other cases, he’s just planning on making them so expensive to use that no one ever will. At the end of the day, the result is just the same as a ban. In Joe Biden’s America, every oil, natural gas, fracking, and coal job will, sooner or later, be eliminated—directly or indirectly—by the federal government.

Jobs Destroyed

If Biden has it his way, millions—not hundreds or thousands—of jobs will be destroyed.

It’s true that some of these jobs will be replaced by gigantic new government programs and subsidies meant to encourage the expansion of the wind and solar industries, but there is absolutely no way Biden can ensure that everyone in industries related to existing conventional energy sources will find work in a wind or solar facility.

The truth is, countless Americans won’t. Many people’s lives will be ruined.

Perhaps even more importantly, because scaled-up wind and solar costs much more and is much less reliable than existing conventional energy, hundreds of thousands—maybe even millions—of additional jobs will be destroyed, never allowed to come to fruition, or shipped overseas to places with lower energy costs.

According to the Center of the American Experiment, if 80 percent of the electric grid were reliant on wind, solar, or battery storage, it would force Americans to spend more than $1.4 trillion in additional electricity costs every single year.

With these costs in mind, it is clear many U.S. businesses, especially energy-intensive ones like those in the manufacturing sector, simply would not survive under Biden’s model.

Joe Biden’s climate and energy plans would devastate America and put the country on the road to economic catastrophe. Hopefully, more Americans will wake up to this reality before it’s too late.

Justin Haskins (jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial Director and Research Fellow at The Heartland Institute.

IT'S BACK: The Heartland Institute's Next CAN'T MISS Climate Conference spot_img
Justin Haskins
Justin Haskins
Justin Haskins is the Editorial Director and a Research Fellow at The Heartland Institute.


  1. I’d like to expand the discussion on your article just a bit. So far, there is a lot of discussion about job loss & higher utility bills. True, but to better amplify the “madness” of the Biden Energy Plan, I would offer the following “Six Pack” for consideration:
    1.) Legal: Under what authority would Joe Biden place a nationwide ban on fracing? Sure, he can probably impose limitations on the federal domain, but I highly doubt State authorities like the TX Railroad Commission & N. Dakota Industrial Commission will have much tolerance for overreach into their customary oil & gas regulation. Besides, on private land if you attempt to ban fracing, effectively, you condemn the subsurface mineral rights. By any reasonable measure under property law that appears to be a TAKING so I highly doubt private mineral owners will sit idle on that confiscation issue. So, my instincts tell me that any attempt to ban fracing would be limited in scope.
    2.) That said, I think the bigger danger to oil & gas operators is the ELIMINATION of the long standing tax deductions for intangible drilling costs. Biden is claiming these tax arrangements as industry “subsidies,” but it is the same accelerated expense of capital costs afforded to ALL other U.S manufacturers. Risking private money to formulate capital is NOT the same as taxpayer handouts like renewables enjoy. Couple that with legislation introduced in the House by Democrats last week to attempt to limit private investment in the oil & gas sector and those might ultimately prove more impactful.
    3.) How about we eliminate ALL subsidies (then) in the energy arena? If renewables are so cheap & efficient, they will DOMINATE competitors and the marketplace, right? As a long time industry employee, I’ll bet the oil & gas industry is not afraid to compete for market share on a LEVEL playing field.
    4.) While proponents of the Green New Deal may claim to be “aspirational,” they certainly don’t show much MATHEMATICAL acumen. If you check the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website, it will confirm that oil & gas provides SIXTY-FIVE percent of U.S primary energy. At present, renewables (wind & solar) provide FIVE percent. So, when Biden says he will “phase out” oil & gas with wind & solar, just how does that work? Wind & solar provide electricity which is only 20% of our nations primary energy. How does that translate into the other major component areas…Like transportation fuels, industrial heat, residential & commercial uses, not to mention the MYRIAD of useful consumer products each & EVERY American uses in their daily, modern lifestyle?
    5.) VILIFICATION of energy PROVIDERS solves nothing. Finding constructive solutions to the energy transition challenge has no “Easy Button.” So, if you want the right answers, then start asking the RIGHT questions! Practically, if you want to replace fossil fuels, then the only question that matters given energy imperatives is this: “What CLEAN, SCALABLE & AFFORDABLE alternative do you recommend?’ Statements like “100% renewables or ZERO carbon emissions by X Date” are nothing more than slogans. They have little basis in functional reality.
    6.) We have been given a GIFT for the commencement of a thoughtful, well informed & reasoned debate on a national energy strategy & attendant policies. It’s name? CALIFORNIA! If you want a preview of what the Green New Deal will look like, look no further than the “Golden” State. An excellent example of exactly what NOT to do! Too much reliance on renewables & neighboring States excess generating capacity, too little conventional (base load) generating sources and 60% of the State’s oil consumption supplied by FOREIGN imports has California with some of the highest cost, least reliable electricity & high fuel prices in the country. How is THAT a definition of success?
    Sorry my treatise (here) was a bit long-winded. Lots of facets to consider. When it comes to energy, perhaps rather than all the ongoing “drama & theater” we need to move this discussion over to the “science & engineering” side of campus…

    • If the Bidenites do shut down all of these industries then just from where will the money come from to pay for their criminal institution?

  2. Forgot to mention. I’d submit the entire premise that fracing is dangerous is not supported. To support my contention, over the past 10 years, there are over TWO DOZEN peer reviewed scientific studies by major universities & government agencies on the groundwater impacts of fracing. If there is an industrial process in America that has EVER been more extensively examined than fracing, then clue me in. The results of these creditable studies: “No evidence of systematic contamination of groundwater.” That was the top line finding (even) in the Obama EPA’s comprehensive study in 2016. Just facts. Follow the money you say? I say, show me ONE example of ANY of these scientific studies cited being REFUTED by any environmental NGO. Basically, the VAST preponderance of scientific evidence shows that farcing is a safe, well regulated process. So, I’d submit that the activists, most media outlets & misinformed politicians, unfortunately including Joe Biden are pitching a FALSE NARRATIVE. Your basic NOTHING BURGER. Add that to the list…

    • That’s true, but when the incumbent proves incapable of staying with a focused message and coherently articulating his vision moving forward, all the rest of the “carnival barking” is ineffective. People are TIRED of the chaos. Trump had a real chance of changing the narrative the past couple weeks if he actively rebutted Biden’s claims on COVID and refrains from inflammatory statements like referring to Philadelphia looters as “Biden Voters.” That’s just not HELPFUL, so older voters and suburban (college) educated women won’t respond to the continuation of that type of nonsense. I’d suggest the best probability is the majority of those looters are NON-VOTERS. It must be extremely frustrating working on the WH staff when you just can’t reach a guy who almost seems (at times) to be bent on SELF DEFEAT. By the way, my guess is those older voters deserting Trump this year and the suburban women who swung the 2018 mid terms will be a large enough margin to “swing” the election enough to put Joe Biden in the White House. Too bad, because the last hope will (then) lie with the Senate and if the Republicans can maintain a majority. If the bad taste in the publics mouth regarding Trump cascades down ballot, then don’t be surprised. What a shame. Opening the door to the real prospect of one party authoritarian rule when all the President had to do down the stretch was act (refreshingly) like a “grown up” for a change…

  3. BTW: In case anyone is wondering, I actually voted for Trump. Not because I even REMOTELY like Trump. I just like the Democratic platform and their legislative agenda a LOT LESS. Unfortunately, I think the level of EXHAUSTION with Trump just won’t allow enough people to be that discerning on their choice. All they know is they vehemently DISLIKE (hate) Trump and I understand that. Problem is, that logic of “anything is better than Trump” relies on a viewpoint that the U.S will return to “normal” based on conventional political thinking. My unease is with what is potentially “behind the curtain” with Biden. I think that will look VERY DIFFERENT than most (more centrist) voters currently envision…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Visit Heartland and visit CFACT.

Heartland bringing Climate Realism where & when it mattersspot_img
- Advertisement -spot_img
Get it at Amazon.comspot_img

Most Popular

- Advertisement -spot_img

Recent Comments