The Carbon Pipeline Battle Heats Up

A coalition in South Dakota opposes eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipeline projects, involving political figures from various backgrounds. They believe carbon pipelines should not access private land without a landowner’s consent. Opponents argue that carbon pipelines do not provide essential public services, unlike water and natural gas pipelines. 

The proposed carbon dioxide pipelines in eastern South Dakota aim to establish the largest network of its kind in the United States. These pipelines would gather carbon dioxide emissions from about 60 ethanol plants and biorefineries across the Midwest and transport the captured carbon for underground storage in North Dakota and Illinois.   

Supporters claim that these projects align with efforts to fight climate change and are eligible for significant federal incentives. They also anticipate positive impacts on the growth and sustainability of the ethanol industry. 

A rally held at the state Capitol in Pierre showcased the diverse political and ideological spectrum of the opposition. Some voiced concerns about potential leaks, the focus on carbon capture instead of emission reduction, and the potential conversion of grassland to cornfields due to the expansion of the ethanol industry.  

Opposition to carbon pipeline projects stems from economic factors, with critics arguing they rely on government tax credits for financial viability. Increased federal payments based on carbon storage are seen as unnecessary expenses, failing to deliver intended environmental benefits. 

State Representative Karla Lems, who owns land affected by the pipeline proposals, introduced legislation to prevent carbon pipelines from using eminent domain. Unfortunately, the measure did not succeed, and Lems highlights the influential lobbying efforts by pipeline and ethanol companies as a significant factor. 

The battle over carbon pipelines in South Dakota brings attention to the complexities surrounding climate change mitigation strategies and the clash between environmental concerns, economic incentives, and property rights.  The outcome of this debate will have implications not only for the state but also for the broader national and global discussions on transitioning to a sustainable future.