Photo: Allen J. Schaben, MBR / TNS

Many Democrats have declared Texas to be the nation’s largest battleground state in 2020. After this past week’s debate in Las Vegas, that might be optimistic.

Of particular interest to Texans was an exchange over the gas fracking ban that several candidates have proposed, apparently without regard to how that might affect their electoral prospects in states such as Pennsylvania, which narrowly went for Donald Trump in 2016 — not to mention the Lone Star State, which is rich in electoral votes as well as natural resources.

NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders what he would say to workers who would be displaced by such a ban.

The democratic socialist was unfazed.

“The scientists are telling us that if we don't act incredibly boldly within the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done not just in Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world,” Sanders said.

He added that the “Green New Deal,” which he and more liberal Democrats support, will create up to 20 million new jobs. But for Sanders, at least, the immediate economic impact of a fracking ban isn’t a critical question.

“This is a moral issue, my friends,” he said. “We have to take the responsibility of making sure that the planet we leave our children and grandchildren is a planet that is healthy and habitable.”

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar spoke up, advocating a more incremental approach to tackling the problem, and reminding the audience that — from an environmentalist perspective — there’s something to be said for natural gas.

“I have made it very clear that we have to review all of the permits that are out there right now for natural gas and then make decisions on each one of them and then not grant new ones until we make sure that it's safe,” she said. “But it is a transitional fuel.”

That’s a fair point, and one that explains why Barack Obama supported fracking during his years as president: Natural gas has been displacing coal in America’s energy portfolio, thanks to the shale gas revolution.

Klobuchar added that it’d be hard for any of the Democratic presidential contenders to pass their climate plans, all of which are relatively ambitious, without bringing along moderate and independent voters, and the men and women in Congress who represent them. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive who has also called for a fracking ban, took issue with her moderate colleague’s line of reasoning.

“She says we have to think smaller in order to get it passed. I don't think that's the right approach here,” Warren said. “Why can't we get anything passed in Washington on climate?”

The exchange got relatively little attention on cable news shows because the debate itself was such a food fight, with the Democratic contenders attacking one other. They particularly went after the newest candidate in the field, billionaire businessman and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, whose ads seem to be everywhere in Texas these days.

But the issue is one that has particular resonance in Texas, where early voting began this week in advance of a potentially momentous March 3 primary. The state has 228 delegates up for grabs.

A December study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute — inspired, clearly, by the Democratic denunciations of the fossil fuels industry — found that an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing would cost the country 4 million jobs in its first year, 2021, and 19 million jobs by 2025.

Major energy-producing states such as Texas would be hard-hit, for obvious reasons. According to the Chamber’s analysis, we could expect to lose 3 million jobs by 2025, and $1.5 trillion in state GDP. Our cost of living, moreover, would increase by more than $7,000 a year. Making matters worse, say some business leaders, is that a fracking ban would make light of one of Texas’s greatest contributions to the energy portfolio: hydraulic fracturing. The technique was developed here.

“Texans are rightfully proud of the ‘father of fracking’ George P. Mitchell, and of the benefits that hydraulic fracturing has brought the globe,” said Jeff Moseley, the president and CEO of the Texas Association of Business, in a statement when the study was released.

Moseley added that he hoped the study would serve as a wake-up call for politicians rushing around the country calling for fracking bans. And some of the Democrats running for president, it should be noted, don’t need one: former Vice President Joe Biden, like Klobuchar, has advocated a gradual transition away from fossil fuels, as have Bloomberg and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“We want to go to all renewables. But that's still many years from now,” said Bloomberg, at the debate, articulating what might be summarized as the moderate stance.

I called Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University, to ask how down-ballot Democrats in Texas would fare if the party’s presidential nominee campaigns in part on a fracking ban. He chuckled.

“That probably is the kiss of death for any hopes that Texas Democrats might have for flipping the Texas House,” said Jones.

And Jones reasons that Houston-area Democrats, such as U.S. Rep Lizzie Fletcher would be particularly at risk if someone such as Sanders were to win the nomination: she hasn’t signed on to the Green New Deal and opposes a fracking ban, but ultimately, it might be hard to separate her views from her party’s embrace of such a plan — especially since Republicans will reject the suggestion that one should.

“As much as many Texans are concerned about climate change,” Jones explained, “the reality is that certain regions of the state depend heavily on the oil and gas industry and the petrochemical industry — not to mention all the secondary effects.”

“Essentially, if you ban fracking you create a massive hole in the state budget,” Jones added.

“That doesn’t even take into account the impact on philanthropy,” he continued. “And then that starts to hurt many progressive groups — the Houston Symphony, Hermann Park, the Museum of Fine Arts…”

Jones was painting a comically bleak version of Houston’s future, one in which unemployment would soar, and consumer expenses would rise, so we can’t even afford to drive our beat-up cars to our increasingly ramshackle parks.

But it is true that a fracking ban would be terrible for Texas — and the push for one, from national Democratic leaders, isn’t particularly helpful for Texas Democrats.

erica.grieder@chron.com