If there's one thing we know about Kamala Harris' policy objectives, it's that she is a big fan of green energy and wants to do away with fossil fuels to save the planet. That's particularly true of fracking for oil and natural gas. She is vehemently opposed to it and has repeatedly promised to ban the practice if elected president. Or at least that's what we thought we knew about Kamala Harris until that wasn't her position anymore. Everything changed when she agreed to do an interview on CNN on Thursday along with her babysitter, er... running mate, Tim Walz. When Dana Bash asked her why her position had changed, Harris' answer was almost remarkable in its lack of specificity or clarity. Even NPR was forced to admit that this was "a reversal of her position during her first presidential run."

In a sit-down interview with CNN on Thursday, Vice President Harris said she wouldn’t ban fracking if elected president, a reversal of her position during her first presidential run.

The Democratic nominee attempted to explain why her position has changed from being against fracking to being in favor of it.

“What I have seen is that we can grow, and we can increase a clean energy economy without banning fracking,” she told CNN’s Dana Bash.

Lest we forget, Kamala Harris did promise to "ban fracking on day one" during her first presidential bid in 2019. We're not talking about ancient history here. That was barely four years ago. We haven't learned anything new about fracking in the intervening time that would make it either more or less popular with climate change alarmists. She said it in plenty of other venues as well. It was a popular line when speaking to liberal audiences.

So what changed since then? Well... nothing, really, except for the fact that Pennsylvania is a swing state and if Donald Trump carries it he will have blown a huge hole in the side of the Democratic ship. Pennsylvania is still the second-largest producer of oil and natural gas in America and a lot of jobs are created by the oil and gas industry. You don't carry the state by promising to put that many middle-class workers out in the unemployment line.

To her credit, Dana Bash actually asked about the change of position on fracking. Kamala's answer was clearly stated, articulated, and made absolutely no sense whatsoever. She said, "What I have seen is that we can grow, and we can increase a clean energy economy without banning fracking." Oh, really? And when did this sudden breakthrough in "clean fracking" take place? I'm not claiming to be the world's foremost authority on the subject here, but I follow and report on the energy industry regularly and have done so for years. With a few minor tweaks here and there, we're still fracking pretty much the same way that we have been for decades.

Harris eventually abandoned her promise to ban fracking after she was selected to be Joe Biden's running mate. She shifted her position to match Biden's. Good ole' Scranton Joe never claimed that there were benefits to fracking or that it could be done "cleanly" enough to satisfy the left wing of his party. He too did that because he needed to carry Pennsylvania. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about the "green energy" left in this country. They talk a good game to keep the climate change alarmists happy, but where the rubber meets the road in terms of carrying the electoral college or winning reelection, they will walk away from those values in a heartbeat and fly off in their private jets to hang out with their friends at Davos. Don't allow Kamala's posturing to fool you. She is every bit as unserious and shallow as the rest of them.