Laws, lands and lives: Much at stake in CO2 pipeline debate

South Dakota’s Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Debate

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (South Dakota News Watch) – For more than a year, a highly divisive debate has raged in South Dakota over two proposed carbon dioxide pipelines that would capture the toxic gas from ethanol plants and carry it to North Dakota and Illinois for disposal underground.

The stakes are extremely high on both sides of the argument, with billions of dollars of possible investment in play, hundreds of landowners potentially affected and the stability of the state’s $3 billion ethanol industry hanging in the balance.

At the same time, the ongoing state-permitting process and possible legislative involvement hold the potential to forever alter landowner rights in the state and further codify the ability of corporations to implement eminent domain to use the land of property owners without their consent.

And finally, hovering over the entire permitting process is the question of whether carbon-capture technology is a good investment of billions of federal dollars to reduce CO2 emissions.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
2. Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
3. Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
4. Goal 13: Climate Action
5. Goal 15: Life on Land

Proposed Carbon Dioxide Pipelines in South Dakota

Complex, multi-faceted discussions and permitting processes are taking place in six affected states over whether — and how — to site, build and put into operation the combined 3,300 miles of pipelines that operators hope to have in place and flowing in 2024.

But the debate in South Dakota, where one pipeline would cross 470 miles and the other 62 miles of mostly East River farmland, has taken on greater significance as Public Utilities Commission members face decisions that could alter the lands, the laws and the lives of South Dakotans for an inestimable number of years.

As regulators in Pierre hold hearings and grapple with approval decisions, and some lawmakers and local governments begin to seek ways to protect landowners from eminent domain, South Dakota News Watch is providing a platform on which to better understand the proposed projects and their potential outcomes.

The Proposals

• Summit Carbon Solutions: A 2,000-mile, $3.7 billion pipeline that would carry 12 million tons of CO2 northward each year from 32 ethanol plants in five states to a site in central North Dakota.
• Navigator CO2 Ventures: A $3 billion, 1,300-mile project that would capture 15 million tons of CO2 each year from 20 ethanol and fertilizer plants in five states and terminate at a site in central Illinois.

The Technology

Some experts question whether CCS is an effective method of fighting climate change and if it is worth the billions in investment.

A fundamental question among climate-change scientists is whether the practice of CCS, the process at the heart of the two proposed pipeline projects, is the best way forward in the effort to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Also in play, however, is the debate over the cost, and whether spending billions on carbon-capture technology is the best use of taxpayer money and industry investment in the broader effort to reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases and ultimately better protect the planet from climate change. Some argue that focusing time, money and resources on CCS to mitigate climate change could slow more effective efforts to protect the earth.

In CCS, carbon emitted by industrial plants is captured at the source rather than being emitted into the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is then pressurized into a liquid that is transported through underground pipelines to storage areas far beneath the earth’s surface.

The two pipelines could keep nearly 30 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere, which makes them highly valuable, said Matthew Fry, a policy analyst on carbon issues for the Great Plains Institute, a Minnesota-based independent, nonprofit think-tank focused on energy and climate.

“We’re going to transition away from fossil fuels eventually, but it isn’t going to happen in my lifetime … because we just can’t meet our requirements as humans at this point to immediately switch to full non-carbon emission industry or energy resources,” Fry said. “So in the space of transition before we can go full green, we’re going to have to do carbon capture to meet climate goals.”

Opponents of CCS, however, say the billions spent to capture carbon and build pipelines to carry it could be better spent in reducing dependence on fossil fuels to begin with, and in protecting natural methods of CO2 reduction, such as increasing forests and natural areas. They say the money could also be used to further incentivize industries, including carmakers, to more rapidly advance the switch to electric or other low-emission vehicles.

Those who oppose CCS also say the process is a way of “green-washing” the fossil-fuel industry, giving the appearance of reducing carbon emissions while actually extending the time America and the world are reliant on fossil fuels for transportation.

The Money

The U.S. Congress has been largely supportive of CCS, and has allocated billions in funding to support research and development of carbon-capture projects. From 2010 to 2020, Congress provided $10.7 billion to CCS-related activity and programs, according to an October 2021 Congressional Research Service report. President Joe Biden recently signed into law his omnibus $1 trillion infrastructure package, which provides another $12 billion for carbon-capture research and projects. Much of that funding is available to companies that build and

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
• SDG 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes.
• SDG 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.
• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
• SDG 15.2: Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests, and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for SDG 7.2: Share of renewable energy in the total energy consumption.
• Indicator for SDG 9.4: Proportion of the population that has convenient access to public transport, by sex, age, and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator for SDG 11.4: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.
• Indicator for SDG 13.1: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.
• Indicator for SDG 15.2: Forest area as a proportion of total land area.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: dakotanewsnow.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.