In the pipeline

Good ideas are coming

Roughly speaking, we Americans (all 332 million of us) stand on ground that is infused with a pipeline network that would stretch over three million miles if laid end to end. For perspective, the distance from New York City to Los Angeles is about 2,800 miles.

This network of pipelines delivers the energy we use to drive, ride, and fly, and directly provides the natural gas that heats our food and keeps 68 million households warm, not to mention indirectly providing heat and cooling from electricity generated by natural gas.

Yet, despite easily being the most environmentally friendly way to transport this fuel, pipelines always seem to have opposition—from the political left and right. Those leaning port worry about environmental issues or offending a caribou, and those leaning starboard scream about property rights.

So it should come as no surprise that a proposed pipeline by Summit Carbon Solutions is being opposed on similar grounds.

Summit (not related to Summit Utilities here in Arkansas), is based in Ames, Iowa, and has proposed to move carbon emissions captured from 34 ethanol plants in the Midwest to permanent storage deep underground in North Dakota. These emissions will never enter the atmosphere and will never play a role in a sweltering Arkansas summer. Investors want to put $5.5 billion toward this project.

Carbon capture, otherwise known as sequestration, entails gathering and removing CO2 emissions from those who emit the stuff. Moving this noxious gas by truck ultimately creates more emissions from transportation than it sequesters from production. Hence, pipelines make sense.

While proponents point to the obvious benefits of keeping emissions out of the atmosphere, opponents say the tech isn’t proven at scale, and is a way for fossil-fuel companies to claim they’re addressing climate change without significantly changing their ways.

The 2,000-mile pipeline would travel through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska. Summit’s not alone. At least two similar projects, from Navigator CO2 Ventures and Wolf Carbon Solutions, are also in the works. Like Summit, they are in the regulatory process.

Regulation is key here. Regulating how pipelines are built and maintained is a major reason why we only read about pipeline incidents within this three million-plus mile network every few years instead of every day. Another point is the pipeline industry gets paid based on how much stuff a pipeline delivers from point A to point B; therefore owners have a keen interest in their integrity over the long term. It doesn’t pay to lose stuff en route.

Opponents have it wrong when they say projects like this don’t force fossil-fuel companies to change their ways. CO2 sequestration itself is a significant change. And $5.5 billion isn’t chump change.

Like all industrial processes, fossil energy production creates carbon emissions, but the real climate challenge comes from consumption. Until the American consumer plays a larger role in reducing consumption, these problems will persist. Deeds matter more than words, and the deed of reducing consumption matters more than the words scolding the companies who produce the products consumers buy.

Until this changes, we should be applauding a ribbon-cutting, rather than standing in the way of breaking ground for these projects.