AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott
Across the country, farmers and small communities are desperately rallying to protect their land and families from thousands of miles of new “carbon capture” pipelines being built as a result of Democrats’ misleadingly titled “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA).
In total, the IRA contained some $783 billion in spending related to Democrats’ environmental agenda, much of which came in the form of lucrative subsidies for utility companies to make energy production more “green.” As a result, hundreds of corporations have scrambled to vacuum up a portion of the funding.
Several dozen ventures have sprung up to build a network of carbon capture pipelines which would extend from the Great Lakes down to Texas and across the Midwest to Maine and Florida.
Carbon capture technology is a process designed to mitigate the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It involves capturing CO2 from industrial processes or power plants, transporting the captured CO2 to a storage site (via a network of pipelines) and storing it deep underground in depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers to prevent its release into the atmosphere.
The practice has enjoyed some bipartisan support in Congress in recent years, and several Republican governors have endorsed pipeline proposals. However, for all the hopeful, high-minded talk about carbon capture technology, most of the public has been left in the dark on the effectiveness and environmental impact of this technology.
The carbon capture and transport process carries significant risks, many of which the citizens of Satartia, Mississippi, learned first-hand in February 2020 when an underground carbon capture pipe burst and sent plumes of carbon dioxide rushing through the town. A recent article from The Intercept described the scene: “People were acting like zombies, dazed and walking in circles or gazing back blankly as responders yelled for them to evacuate. Others convulsed, drooling, as panic-stricken family members called 911.”
The pipeline operator waited an hour before informing first responders that the gas was highly compressed carbon dioxide and not natural gas, as was initially believed. Forty-nine citizens were hospitalized, and many sustained traumas that affect them to this day.
This incident highlights serious concerns about the rapid proliferation of carbon capture pipelines. Highly compressed carbon dioxide is is entirely odorless and, when in gas form, is not subject to the same level of regulation as oil and natural gas. Americans are often unaware that a CO2 pipeline is going in near their home until digging begins.
While construction companies that stand to make a killing from building the pipelines and investors that will enjoy the lucrative tax benefits from the projects are all in favor of them, Americans on both sides of the political aisle have formed some unlikely alliances to push back against this component of Democrats’ environmental agenda.
In Iowa, for instance, which is set to become home to hundreds of miles of CO2 pipelines, liberal environmental groups are teaming up with conservatives like ex-GOP Congressman Steve King to oppose $8 billion in proposed carbon capture infrastructure in the Hawkeye State. Eminent domain hearings are currently underway to determine if construction companies for one of those projects, the $4.5 billion Summit pipeline, can begin seizing farmers’ land to run the pipeline through.
The Summit pipeline is set to terminate in North Dakota, where it has forged another improbable alliance between mostly white farmers and Native American tribes. While the farmers are similarly concerned about the pipeline cutting through their land and potentially endangering their crops, Native Americans have said that the project will cut across lands that are sacred to their tribes.
This presents a particularly thorny issue for the White House, as President Joe Biden cited a concern for Native American heritage sites as one reason behind his decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline back in 2021. Notably, that project would have only straddled or run alongside Native American lands, while several of the proposed CO2 pipeline projects would run directly through them.
So far, North Dakota regulators have denied a siting permit for the Summit pipeline’s proposed route in the state, but Governor and Republican candidate for president Doug Burgum has been a strong backer of the project.
More public hearings are scheduled for September, where conservative farmers and liberal environmental activists are both expected to voice their frustrations.
The upcoming Iowa caucuses, now just a few months away, could also help make the debate over CO2 pipelines a high-profile national story heading into next year. Multiple Republican candidates have already been asked about it by Iowa voters, a pattern the mainstream media is starting to pick up on.
It will be deeply ironic if, after making opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline a major issue in his 2020 campaign, Biden’s support for a network of CO2 pipelines becomes a major liability for him in 2024.
Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with more than a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture.
