TTwo years ago, President Biden signed the world’s largest climate change spending plan, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which at the time was estimated to provide $370 billion to support emissions reduction programs.

At the presidential debate on Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris praised the law for a very different reason: It paves the way for more oil and gas drilling.

It was just one of many statements in which the Democratic presidential candidate made the case that, in addition to promoting clean energy technologies, she would also promote domestic production of fossil fuels. Early on, she emphasized that she now supports fracking, a technology used to drill oil and gas wells, after saying in 2019 that she favored a ban on the technology. She celebrated that the “largest increase in domestic oil production in history” had occurred during the Biden administration. “We must invest in diverse energy sources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” she said.

At the same time, former President Donald Trump tried to put his opponent on the defensive on the issue, saying that if Harris is elected, “oil will be dead” and repeatedly returning to the topic unprompted throughout the debate.

In substance, the debate differs little from long-standing policy debates in Washington. Biden has spent heavily and used the government’s regulatory powers to promote clean energy, while calling for increased oil and gas production as those technologies continue to grow. Republicans overwhelmingly call for policies that benefit oil and gas even more.

Rhetorically, however, Harris’ departure could hardly have been more drastic. Harris not only abandoned her previous support for a fracking ban, but also built her profile as California’s attorney general by specifically investigating oil companies.

This is an indicator of how much energy and climate policy has changed in the last four years. The oil market has been turned upside down since the 2020 presidential election, when oil prices collapsed amid the COVID pandemic and the industry appeared to be in financial trouble. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 sparked panic as fears grew that Russia, a major oil exporter, would restrict supplies. In response, Biden urged U.S. companies to produce more oil.

At the same time, instead of trying to push through a comprehensive new climate policy program, Democrats must now go on the defensive to protect the rules they have created over the past four years. A future Trump administration would target the reams of environmental regulations enacted from the entire Biden administration. government. And all eyes would be on the IRA as some Republicans would seek to end the Clean Energy Act’s tax incentives and claw back funds already given to federal agencies.

In fact, when asked how she would address climate change, Harris had little forward-looking vision. Instead, she praised the IRA, saying it had created manufacturing jobs and boosted investment in America’s auto industry. “During my tenure as vice president, we invested so much in clean energy that we’re opening factories around the world,” she said.

And then there’s the political calculation that has everyone talking about fracking: Pennsylvania is a must-win swing state, and fracking has played a key role in encouraging drilling in the state’s Marcellus Shale. Given oil’s significant role in the state’s economy, supporting a ban on fracking is widely seen as a dangerous position.

But if you focus too much on the fracking debate, you won’t see the forest for the trees. First of all, presidents don’t have the power to unilaterally ban fracking. And in general, the oil industry is driven much more by the markets than by politics.

And voters will not fail to realize that Harris’ most important step on climate change as president will likely be to continue to enforce existing laws.