LETTER: Land ownership being assailed in Iowa for CO2 pipelines

It’s a tale as old as time.

Major corporate players seeing dollar signs descend into small towns and fly-over states, looking to sell something to its residents. These representatives appear at civic meetings to address public concerns. Often in what has become a common form of deception, it’s not what they say at these meetings, but rather, what they DON’T address when queried by the public. Bear in mind, these meetings are designed to inform the public. It’s a sad fact they omit pertinent facts, leave questions unanswered, and utilize the vagaries of sophistry in their sales pitch(es). Ultimately, what gets sacrificed in this process are the rights and/or safety concerns of local citizenry.

In many cases, by the time these corporate interests are satiated, permits are acquired, and the public is deceived, it’s too late. What’s worse is that precedents get set, pressuring other communities to comply with whatever scheme is being foisted upon them.

Currently, land ownership is being assailed in Iowa, North and South Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska. Eminent Domain on privately owned land is being enacted throughout these states in order to accommodate an underground pipeline that would be used to transport liquified Carbon Dioxide.

While the rest of America is pre-occupied with, (among other things), the border crisis and skyrocketing crime, the inevitability of World War three, an economy that resembles a dumpster fire, along with the most consequential Presidential election ever, it’s understandable why little attention is being afforded to issues surrounding carbon capture pipelines in the Midwest. Yet here we are.

“So what’s the problem?…” you may ask. The answer is that there are many.

For one, landowners’ rights are at stake. If we are to relax eminent domain standards to facilitate relatively unproven technology, it’s fair to say we’re agreeing to a luge run down a slippery slope. Let’s slow down and go back to square one. Have all parties considered the original driving forces behind carbon capture technology? Have all dissenting science-backed voices regarding the dangers of CO2 content in our atmosphere been considered?

Aren’t we all just placating the ESG standards corporate governance is bowing to?

While we’re at it, can anyone explain how “carbon credits” are not a fabricated market scheme designed to enrich those who created and sold it to ESG-compliant corporations and their investors?

Let’s talk safety. These pipelines will be buried 4 feet below the ground and will have 2,176 pounds per square inch of pressure inside them. Any leakage of CO2 would be deadly to humans or animals. Even with booster pumping stations and isolation valves along the way, the expansion rate at that pressure is 400-600 times the volume of any leakage that might occur. This means any leakage or containment of this deadly gas would be next to impossible, and that’s assuming properly outfitted response teams would be available to act.

The oft-denied and “inconvenient truth” is that pipelines rupture. It’s just a fact. Damage done by these events is almost always exclusively environmental. Clean-up efforts resulting in losses of billions of dollars can mitigate some of the damage. However, carbon capture pipelines represent an entirely enhanced level of danger: not only to the environment but to lives of the residents in surrounding areas, as well. Perhaps this is why safety concerns tend to be glossed over and avoided altogether during town hall and civic meetings.

Simply put, the ”valid public purpose” stipulation in eminent domain legislation by states and municipalities is not well served when one considers the threats to life and property these pipelines represent.

Gone are the days when blind trust in big government, big pharma or big corporations was an acceptable methodology in decision-making.

I can think of a time not too long ago when the entire world was assured of the benefits of masking and vaccines which, (to put it mildly), not only were never realized but provided damages that will continue to be felt for years.

Why bring this issue up? Because all proper and relevant information, questions and answers weren’t provided then, either. This time around, by using our informed voices, we have an opportunity to cease repeating yet another destructive cycle.