While former President Barack Obama was in charge, countless regulations were put in place to prevent America from becoming energy independent. They claimed that doing so would ultimately protect the environment.

Some of the most burdensome regulations affected “fracking,” otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing. “Fracking” is the process of using a massive amount of pressure to force liquid into rocks in order to extract oil or gas. The restrictions were allegedly put in place out of fear that fracking pollutes drinking water despite the fact that studies done on fracking have continuously found that this is not the case.

For example, according to a recent report done by the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas, based in Austin, it is “highly unlikely” that people’s drinking water will be harmed by fracking. The study, which lasted three years, stated that “direct migration of contaminants from targeted injection zones is highly unlikely to lead to contamination of potential drinking water aquifers.”

In order to conduct the study, a panel called the Task Force on the Environmental and Community Impact of Shale was assembled. When asked about the impact that fracking has on drinking water, Christine Ehlig-Economides, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston who is chairwoman of the task force, made it clear to reporters that “in Texas and pretty much everywhere, hydraulic fracturing has not been proven to have an adverse impact on drinking water.”

The report also pushed back against the idea that fracking consuming a massive amount of water, asserting that although “the average annual water use for hydraulic fracturing activities in 2011 and 2012 in Texas was about 20 billion gallons of water, because this volume represents 0.2 percent of total water use in the state, and 0.7 percent of total state consumptive use, it might be considered small.”

Additionally, the researchers explored how fracking affects earthquake activity, land resources, air quality, the economy, society, and transportation. In each category, except for one, the results were essentially positive. The one area that was negative was transportation. This is because fracking creates a spike in truck activity, which costs taxpayers roughly $2 billion per year in pavement repair. Even though $2 billion may seem like a lot of money, overall, fracking appears to be worth it. This is because, according to the report, fracking has added $473 billion to the Texas economy and, so far, has created roughly 3.8 million jobs. In light of this evidence, opponents of fracking have largely fallen silent.

Fortunately, President Trump understands the importance of fracking. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order rolling back burdensome Obama-era regulations on the activity. “The action I’m taking today will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom, and allow our companies and our workers to thrive, compete, and succeed on a level playing field for the first time in a long time,” he explained before signing.

“[The order] is the latest in a series of steps to create American jobs and to grow American wealth. We’re ending the theft of American prosperity and rebuilding our beloved country,” he continued, noting, “together, we are going to start a new energy revolution — one that celebrates American production on American soil.”

On Twitter, Trump added, “fracking will lead to American energy independence. With price of natural gas continuing to drop, we can be at a tremendous advantage.”

Fracking will lead to American energy independence. With price of natural gas continuing to drop, we can be at a tremendous advantage. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2012

Unsurprisingly, many were outraged by Trump’s decision to make America more energy independent. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), for instance, accused him of endangering future generations. Specifically, she said, “President Trump and Congressional Republicans’ contempt for clean air, clean water, and our clean energy future endangers the health of our children and the strength of our economy.”

Michael Saul, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, added, “this disturbing decision highlights Trump’s desire to leave our beautiful public lands utterly unprotected from oil industry exploitation. Backing away from these modest rules is doubly dangerous given the administration’s reckless plans to ramp up fracking and drilling on public lands across America.”

Their complaints, however, are completely ridiculous. Trump doesn’t have contempt for clear air, he just wants to get rid of job-killing regulations. Doing so also doesn’t endanger children, it benefits them by strengthening the economy. Additionally, it doesn’t leave lands completely unprotected from oil industry exploitation, it just gets rid of the regulations that are unnecessary.

The authoritarian left must not be allowed to stifle the economy with burdensome regulations. Trump should continue to work with Republicans to not only make our country as clean as possible but also competitive.