Despite Promise of Carbon Capture Projects, Activists Oppose Critical Investment
Last week, Politico featured a piece discussing the backlash Democratic leadership is facing regarding the massive buildout of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration infrastructure wrapped in the proposed infrastructure bill.
$2 billion in the bipartisan infrastructure bill has been earmarked to develop new infrastructure to capture and carry carbon dioxide from industrial emitters to underground storage sites – removing emissions before they reach the atmosphere and contribute to climate change.
But the reason far left environmentalists are against this climate solution? Because the term “pipeline” is involved. One carbon-capturing powerhouse pipeline is planned to stretch nearly 710 miles across Iowa, capturing carbon dioxide from ethanol, fertilizer, and other critical industrial and agricultural plants.
The project is meant to help Iowa farmers, who sell half of the state’s corn crop each year to ethanol producers. A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll, conducted Sept. 12-15, found that 85% of Iowans view ethanol as important to the state’s economy. It would be the world’s largest carbon sequestration pipeline, the company says, with the capacity to capture up to 12 million metric tons of carbon annually. That equals taking up to 2.6 million vehicles off the road each year.
What anti-pipeliners are refusing to recognize is that this project would help ethanol and other energy-intensive ag industries remain viable and support the economy as our nation seeks to cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2030 and reach our long-term environmental goals.
Per usual, these loud environmentalists in the minority are causing a ruckus without rhyme or reason, solely based on their misconstrued, partial version of the truth. Proposed carbon capture pipelines will not only work against the rising carbon emission rates in America, but will build out the necessary infrastructure for future, climate-friendly use.
