People Don’t Want the CCS Pipelines Pushed by Agenda 2030

3

Should we put CCS 80 feet below farmland?

Bloomberg Law reports that the world’s largest carbon capture and sequestration project [CCS] faces resistance from farmers and environmentalists even as John Deere & Co. and New York financiers are investing in the $4.5 billion endeavor.

“The Midwest Carbon Express is a privately financed, 2,000-mile-long pipeline network. It will collect carbon dioxide emissions at dozens of Midwest ethanol facilities. It will then inject the emissions into the underground porous rock in North Dakota. Project supporters claim “the emissions will be trapped forever.” Hmmm…

Ethanol is pushed and pushed. Farmers are willing to grow corn to keep afloat with the subsidies. But ethanol is a bit of a scam and certainly does nothing good for car and motorcycle engines.

Recent research suggests that ethanol is no better for the planet than fossil fuels. It may even be worse due to the amount of farmland needed to grow corn and increased fertilizer use. According to one study published in February, ethanol is at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline.

The leftist elites say these carbon capture and storage pipelines [CCS] are necessary since we can’t kill off fossil fuels for 30-50 years.

We say they are wrong – they never can. Everything needs petroleum or coal. It’s likely they know they’re wrong, and the goal is to curb ordinary people’s lifestyles. We pollute too much. The rich – the elites – do not hold us in high regard.

Tiger Infrastructure Partners LP. and Navigator CO2 Ventures LLC are investing in it. This is a big money maker. The most alarming investor is BlackRock, the largest fund in the world run by Larry Fink. Fink is a radical climate theorist and leftist.

There are three CO2 pipeline projects in Iowa’s early stages of planning. The companies behind them – Summit, Navigator, and a partnership of Wolf Carbon Solutions and Archer Daniel Midlands – have been contacting landowners in hopes of getting them to grant easements.

But hundreds of people say they won’t sign. Furthermore, the Guardian reports don’t want to see these projects go forward at all.

According to Bloomberg Law, pipeline companies will make money using Section 45Q of the federal tax code, “which provides transferable tax credits to entities for either sequestering carbon emissions or using them for qualified industrial purposes. Projects can also qualify for loans and grants from the Department of Energy, while investors participating in carbon capture projects [CCS] can improve their ratings for environmental, social, and governance [ESG].

These pipelines will use Eminent Domain, and they incentivize some landowners to go along with the massive pipeline. There is some question of whether they will use Eminent Domain but knowing corporations backed by the government, they will.

Bloomberg Law reports that opponents, including environmentalists, constitutionalists like John Birch, and farmers, say the Summit and Heartland Greenway projects will ruin valuable farmland and compel farmers to grow as much corn as possible to produce ethanol instead of adopting more sustainable practices.

Opponents believe there is a risk of polluting waterways and farmland if pipelines rupture. The escaping gas is carbonic acid. One such pipeline did burst.

The fear among environmentalists is also that carbon tax credits and trading markets aren’t climate solutions but ways to shift polluting emissions among entities to enrich private interests, the opponents assert. Environmentalists are afraid it will be used for oil extraction. Thus, anti-fossil fuel activists – the fossil fuel deniers – are opposed.

Free enterprise activist Tom DeWeese frequently says, “Every time you hear the words ‘sustainable’ or ‘carbon footprint,’ someone is pushing for more government power.”

Maybe we should all be concerned about who is behind carbon capture and storage pipelines. It’s a goal of Agenda 2030.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest working group report identifies seven pathways for limiting global warming – all but one include CCS [carbon capture and storage], the Guardian reports.

The John Birch Society is deeply concerned about using Eminent Domain and the ties to Agenda 2030 that are integral to the CCS project.

Before there was Agenda 2030, there was Agenda 21. The alleged goal was to advocate for environmentally beneficial policy. However, then-Earth Summit Chairman Maurice Strong made clear the real goal when he told delegates that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Now we have Agenda 2030 and its powerful proponent Klaus Schwab.

Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum is a crazy German billionaire who wants to “reset” the world economy by putting powerful and wealthy people in charge of controlling all nations. No one will own anything, people won’t have to leave their homes to work, and they will eat ‘nutritious’ bugs instead of beef. Using climate change, the WEF controls the world. COVID looked like the first step to many who believe this is what is happening. Is CCS more of the same?

Start about halfway through:


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim Kuehl
Tim Kuehl
2 months ago

Where are they going to transport all this terrible CO2? I’ve got an idea, CO2 has been used for years in fire extinguishers so let’s transport it to California and other forests where they have all the fires. Pipe it under the most susceptible areas and put nozzles in the pipeline there. When a fire starts open the nozzles and psst, the fire is out. Hey, that makes as much sense as capturing it in the first place.

The Prisoner
The Prisoner
2 months ago

Carbon capture is the craziest and most harmful engineering project ever conceived. It would be tremendously expensive and have huge corruption associated with it. Less CO2 means less plant life. Requiring the capturing of CO2 from industrial sources would bankrupt industries. Industry has already gone so far collecting things such as SO2. A pipeline network to transport the CO2 would be incredibly expensive and invasive.

GuvGeek
GuvGeek
2 months ago

Government subsidies should be Illegal. The Free Market is far more efficient at running the Economy than the Government.