A Different Kind of Pipeline Project Scrambles Midwest Politics

Mar 21, 2023

Two proposals that would transport carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to underground storage have led to a high-stakes economic and environmental fight.

Two proposals that would transport carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to underground storage have led to a high-stakes economic and environmental fight.

Now high-dollar pipeline fights are happening again, but with a twist.

Instead of oil, these projects would carry millions of tons of carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to be injected into underground rock formations rather than dispersed as pollutants in the air.

What is playing out is a very different kind of environmental battle, a huge test not just for farmers and landowners but for emerging technologies promoted as ways to safely store planet-warming carbon.

The technology has generated support from powerful politicians in both parties, as well as major farming organizations, ethanol producers and some environmental groups.

Supporters, including some farmers who have signed agreements to have a pipeline buried on their property, frame the ideas being proposed by two companies as a win for both the economy and environment. They say the pipelines, boosted by federal tax credits, including from the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed last year, would lower carbon emissions while aiding the agricultural economy through continued ethanol production.

But opponents are concerned about property rights and safety, and are not convinced of the projects’ claimed environmental benefits. They have forged unlikely alliances that have blurred the region’s political lines, uniting conservative farmers with liberal urbanites, white people with Native Americans, small-government Republicans with climate-conscious Democrats.

The result, both sides agree, is a high-stakes economic and environmental struggle pitting pipeline advocates against opponents who honed their political and legal strategies over nearly 15 years of fighting the Dakota Access oil pipeline, which has been in operation since 2017, and the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which was never built.

There is no question that technology exists to remove carbon from industrial sites and to transport and store it underground. Less clear: Is carbon capture really an effective counterweight to the overheating planet? And, if so, at what cost?

Click here to see more...

Video: How to fix a leaking pond.

Does the pond leak? Ummmm....possibly a tiny bit. Well, more than a bit...ok, the darn thing leaks like a sieve!

QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Damit is not plastic. Therefore, there are no microplastics. I wish I had not mentioned plastic, but that is a very common polymer and I mentioned it as an example of a polymer. A polymer is simply a chain of repeating molecules, or "monomers." Cellulose is a polymer of glucose molecules. Starches are also polymers of various molecules such as fructose, maltose, etc. We have many polymers inside our bodies. In other words, just knowing something is a polymer doesn't make it bad, toxic, harmful, etc. However, this also doesn't mean all polymers are safe.

The specific polymer used for Damit is a trade secret, however, it has been closely scrutinized by multiple health and safety authorities. This includes the governmental authorities of Australia, the USA, Europe, and Asia. Not only have they determined that is safe to use in earthen ponds, and not harmful to fish, but it is considered safe to use in human potable water systems in all of these areas. And of course, they know the exact makeup of the polymer when making this determination. I'm told that the same polymer is in use by many municipalities to keep potable water storage tanks leak free. I can't tell you exactly what the polymer is, because I don't know, but given the confidence with which the governmental authorities have authorized its use, I would bet it is made of a monomer that we are exposed to all the time, like fructose or something.

It also breaks down in a matter of years, and does not accumulate in the environment. The end products of breaking down are CO2, water, and base minerals like potassium. The SDS reports no need for concern with ingestion, inhalation, or contact. If in eyes, rinse with water.

End result, can I say for sure that it is 100% safe? No, I don't know exactly what it is. But given people who do know exactly what it is, and have scrutinized it, have approved it for use in human potable water systems, I'm pretty comfortable putting it in an earthen pond.