On the menu today: Iowa’s pipeline problem, Dean Phillips’s disappointing event, and some National Review-related announcements.
Pipeline Fights in the Hawkeye State
There’s a high-stakes, big-money fight going on in Iowa, one that has largely escaped the attention of the national news media, and this afternoon, Vivek Ramaswamy will hold a rally at the state capitol over the issue. The question of whether Iowa should approve a network of carbon pipelines stretching into other states is a revealing measure of which presidential candidates have their fingers on the pulse of Iowa voters.
Ethanol contributes about $6 billion to the Iowa economy each year, supporting about 44,000 jobs at 42 ethanol refineries across the state. (Throw in biodiesel, and you’re looking at a total of $7 billion and 57,000 jobs.) Like just about every other industrial process, ethanol production produces carbon dioxide.
The Inflation Reduction Act included a big expansion of the federal tax credit for capturing and storing carbon-dioxide emissions. As the U.S. Department of Energy summarizes:
Substantial improvements to the federal 45Q tax credit include increased credit values to $85 per ton of carbon emissions captured and stored from industrial facilities and power plants and $180 per ton for direct air capture facilities;1 an extension of the credit for a full ten years (i.e. all projects beginning construction by the end of 2032); the ability to claim the credit for 12 years of operation, directly as a cash payment for the first five years of operation and the ability to transfer the credit to outside investors for the remaining seven years; and expanded eligibility for smaller industrial, power generation and direct air capture facilities.
In other words, the federal government is just itching to give a huge stack of money to any company that can set up a carbon-capture-and-storage system. Remember, a tax credit is even better than a tax deduction. A deduction is a subtraction from whatever tax you owe; if a tax credit is bigger than the amount you owe, the government pays you the difference.
One option that the ethanol producers and three other pipeline companies want to develop is carbon capture and storage. A facility collects the carbon dioxide, pumps it through pipelines to another location, and stores it deep underground. Expanding carbon capture could mean “billions of dollars per year in federal tax credits benefiting the powerful Midwest ethanol industry.”
You might be surprised to learn that some environmentalists don’t like these proposals; the Sierra Club denounces this idea as “false climate solutions,” and declares, “We already know the solutions to our climate crisis — we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in solar, wind, battery storage, conservation and efficiency!”
There are also concerns about safety. The Carbon Capture Coalition contends:
CO2 pipelines have been operating safely in the United States for more than 50 years, with over 5,000 miles of pipelines currently in operation — in some cases with individual pipelines safely transporting millions of tons of CO2 annually over hundreds of miles and across entire regions of the country. Since reporting began, CO2 pipelines have had a strong safety record, though a rare, but serious CO2 pipeline failure in Satartia, Mississippi in 2020 has increased public and policymaker concerns about pipeline safety and the overall reliability of these systems as they scale.
In the Satartia rupture, more than 40 people received hospital treatment for symptoms of C02 poisoning and oxygen deprivation, and more than 300 were evacuated.
Back in 2021 and January 2022, three companies — Navigator CO2, Summit Carbon Solutions, and Wolf Carbon Solutions — put forth proposals to capture carbon dioxide at 34 Iowa ethanol plants, liquefying it under pressure, and moving it through the pipelines to other states, mostly Nebraska, North Dakota, and Illinois.
One additional problem is that building those pipelines might require some use of eminent domain, the government’s authority to claim private property for public use, with payment of compensation. And some Iowans argue that a carbon pipeline running from ethanol plants to underground caverns doesn’t qualify as a “public use.”
In October, one of the developers, Navigator CO2, canceled its project, citing the “unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes” in Iowa and South Dakota. Summit Carbon Solutions’ carbon-pipeline-permit application still awaits a decision by the Iowa Utilities Board, and a decision may not arrive until spring. Wolf Carbon Solutions says it doesn’t want to use eminent domain and wants to get landowners to voluntarily sign off on easements for the pipeline.
A March 2023 Des Moines Register survey found that “78% of Iowans oppose companies using the state-granted power to build carbon-capture pipelines across the state, while 15% are in favor and 7% are unsure.”
What does this have to do with the GOP presidential race? Well, unsurprisingly, the locals have asked the candidates about it, and asked whether they stand with the ethanol industry, which wants the pipelines, or the ordinary voters who oppose the projects.
Based on his past comments and the lack of a response to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, it is entirely possible that the frontrunner here has only the most cursory familiarity with the issue:
In a July appearance in Council Bluffs, former President Donald Trump appeared unprepared to field a question about the pipeline situation.
“Well, you know, we’re working on that,” Trump said. “And you know, we had a plan to totally — it’s such a ridiculous situation isn’t it? But we had a plan, and we would have instituted that plan. It was all ready, but we will get it right away. If we win, that’s going to be taken care of. That will be one of the easy things we do.”
His campaign did not respond to a request to comment further about the issue.
In the past, Trump said, “Eminent domain when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good — I think it’s a wonderful thing.”
Ron DeSantis opposes the use of eminent domain for the projects, but appears either neutral or supportive of the projects themselves:
“I would negotiate rather than use the heavy hand of government,” DeSantis said during a campaign stop in Garner.
DeSantis held two town hall meetings in northern Iowa this weekend and fielded questions about carbon pipelines at both events. In Algona, a woman asked DeSantis if a government agency should let a for-profit company use eminent domain to “acquire an involuntary property easement.”
“The question’s about what’s the proper scope of eminent domain. I believe it’s narrow,” DeSantis said. “I believe it’s for public purposes and I think when you have some of these projects, you need to negotiate with the property owners rather than use the coercise power of the state. Negotiate.”
At a town hall forum a few hours later in Garner, a man told DeSantis the carbon pipeline debate “is tearing our state apart.”
DeSantis said he doesn’t know all the details about the issue, but repeated his preference for negotiation on such projects. “There is a narrow role for eminent domain for things that are of really significant public use,” DeSantis said. “I mean, it has been used for highways. I would use it for the border wall down south if need be, but that would be kind of last resort.”
Nikki Haley also said she opposes the use of eminent domain; her answer indicated she believed the pipelines were a useful tool for U.S. energy dominance:
“I don’t want us to just be energy independent. I want us to be energy dominant and I think we do that by having an all-of-the-above energy approach, but we have to always be respectful of the rights and freedoms of hardworking Americans,” Haley said during an interview with Radio Iowa, “and so I’m not a supporter of eminent domain.”
Pipeline backers say ethanol sales will expand if the fuel is carbon neutral and that will benefit corn farmers. Haley said ethanol production can and should be part of a strategy to ensure the U.S. never has to buy oil from places like Iran or Venezuela.
“It’s not that we don’t want these pipelines. I think there’s good that can be done with that and it’s actually good for not only energy, but it’s good for the environment,” Haley said. “We just want to be sure that we’re very conscious of the eminent domain part, to make sure that no one is taking advantage of that.”
But the candidate who has embraced the issue the most is Ramaswamy, who opposes the concept of the pipelines entirely, as well as the use of eminent domain. A week ago, he wrote a guest op-ed in the Des Moines Register:
President Joe Biden expanded these federal subsidies — previously signed into law by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump — to privately owned firms planning to construct CO2 pipelines to transport carbon dioxide generated by Iowa’s ethanol plants to be buried underground. Of course, it’s indefensible to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the capture of carbon dioxide in the name of climate change. It’s even more disturbing that many farmers do not consent to the construction of this pipeline across its land and the big-money pipeline companies are using eminent domain to force these farmers.
This is morally wrong. It’s also unconstitutional.
The Fifth Amendment says, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Meaning private property cannot be taken for private use at all. Then, what constitutes a “public use”? . . .
That the GOP establishment has been complicit in the unconstitutional involuntary seizure of private property is deafening. In a recent Iowa town hall, Ron DeSantis said eminent domain is needed in energy pipeline projects. Other candidates have shamefully sidestepped this issue.
I’m the only major GOP presidential candidate to publicly oppose the use of eminent domain to construct these CO2 pipelines. I pledge, if elected, to withhold federal subsidies from any recipient that use eminent domain to build CO2 pipelines. If the government-industrial complex successfully uses eminent domain for the Iowa CO2 pipeline, there’s nothing to stop them from using it to take your gas stoves next. That’s not hyperbole — that’s the ugly logical conclusion of where this road ends.
And, as noted above, Ramaswamy will hold a rally by the state capitol today.
The Lesser Candidates
Someone thought yesterday’s Corner post about no one showing up to a Dean Phillips event in New Hampshire was mean-spirited.
You may have noticed that the number of figures who announce presidential bids has generally grown each cycle. The 1988 Democratic field was nicknamed “the seven dwarfs” and that was considered a lot of candidates. (The National Enquirer found that 57 percent of poll respondents could name more of the Seven Dwarfs, 24 percent could name more of the candidates, and 19 percent could name the same number of each.) In 2020, 23 Democratic presidential candidates participated in at least one debate. In 2016, 17 Republican candidates participated in at least one debate.
We have a lot of people who are running for president who should not be running for president. They don’t yet have the experience, the record of accomplishments, the proven leadership, or the stature to be a serious candidate. They choose to run anyway because they have runaway egos and are surrounded by sycophants and yes-men. A lot of them are running to be somebody instead of running to do something. They see the presidency as an ego-gratifying prize to be won, instead of a major responsibility that almost always includes grim and daunting tasks such as writing letters of condolence to the families of servicemen and women who died while carrying out your orders.
You’ve probably read those profile pieces — “Why this little-known governor could be the next president of the United States.” Lord knows, I’ve written those kinds of pieces. Except that little-known governor, or senator, or congressman, or mayor almost never becomes the next president of the United States. It’s been a long time since Bill Clinton climbed to the nomination, and even longer since Jimmy Carter.
If you want to be a major-party nominee, people need to have heard of you, and they need to like you before you start running.
There are some people running for president who are probably clinically delusional. There’s optimism about your chances, and then there’s the kind of deep-rooted denial required to run around publicly insisting that you’re going to win when you’re in the low single digits in the polls. Neither you nor me nor anybody else is obligated to play along with these delusions.
It was obvious, pretty early, that despite a lot of Democrats grumbling about Biden’s age, there was no burgeoning appetite to make Dean Phillips the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. When absolutely no one shows up for a Phillips event in downtown Manchester two weeks before the primary, even the candidate himself can see the brutal truth.
ADDENDA: Over in that other Washington publication I write for, I ask whether the frigid weather and crossover voters could be unexpected variables in Monday night’s caucus. . . .
Why should you subscribe to NRPlus, if you aren’t already a subscriber? Because you never know when some National Review writer like me will say, “Hey, I’m in Des Moines,” and one of our readers will say, “Hey, I’m just down the street,” and then we’ll have an impromptu get-together with some folks from the NRPlus Facebook group at some downtown bar.
There are still a few spots left in National Review Institute’s Burke to Buckley Fellowship Program in Miami, New York City, and Philadelphia. “Burke to Buckley is intended for mid-career professionals from a wide variety of professions and industries. Over eight sessions, a small cohort gathers to engage in discussions of first principles and their application to current issues. Experts from academia and National Review serve as moderators for each session. For more information and to apply, click here. Apply today!”