Iowa candidates must pledge to reject carbon pipeline money

Michaelyn Mankel is an Iowa Organizer with Food & Water Action, the political and lobbying arm of the national environmental group Food & Water Watch. She is based in Des Moines.

Last month, the Iowa Utilities Board (renamed the Iowa Utilities Commission as of July 1) approved Summit Carbon Solutions’ permit application for a carbon pipeline. If built, their project would be the largest carbon pipeline in the world, crossing more than 2,000 miles across five states, including nearly 700 miles in Iowa.

The board issued its order as much of the pipeline’s Iowa route was underwater. Extreme flooding displaced hundreds of people, many of whom are under threat of eminent domain land-takings for the project. As Iowans return to their homes and the pipeline approval sinks in, one thing is clear: the fight to keep carbon pipelines out of this state is far from over.

Next month, Summit Carbon will hold a series of public meetings to push for expanding its unwanted project by nearly 50 percent, adding 340 miles of dangerous pipeline in Iowa. With November’s election less than four months away, candidates for office must waste no time in making clear their opposition to this dangerous scam.

Food & Water Action is asking Iowa candidates to pledge not to accept campaign funds from pipeline interests. It’s time for those who represent us to stand with their constituents, not the profiteering corporations trying to ram a carbon pipeline through our state.

Iowans don’t want carbon pipelines. Recent Food & Water Action polling found that a plurality of Iowa voters oppose carbon pipelines, and an overwhelming 80 percent oppose the use of eminent domain to build them. An Iowa Poll by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom showed nearly identical results last year. Thousands of people, organizations, and impacted counties turned this opposition into action, filing formal opposition to the Summit project before the Iowa Utilities Board, attending rallies, and filing lawsuits. But it doesn’t stop there.

Our polling found that fully 73 percent of Iowa voters, regardless of party affiliation, say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported using eminent domain to build carbon pipelines. That group includes 78 percent of Democrats and leaners, 70 percent of independents, and 69 percent of Republicans and leaners.

No issue in recent memory has brought Iowans of different political persuasions together more than opposition to Summit’s carbon pipeline. In a time of increasingly vast political divides, this fight is uniting us. The reason is clear: Carbon pipelines are all risk for Iowa, and no reward.

Carbon pipelines pose a dangerous threat to public health and safety. A 2020 carbon pipeline rupture in Mississippi took less than five minutes to travel a quarter of a mile, ultimately evacuating a town of several hundred people and landing 49 in the hospital. Carbon pipelines are a disaster waiting to happen, and ruptures can be deadly, capable of mass poisonings and asphyxiation.

The current inadequate carbon pipeline regulations do not keep us safe. In April, a carbon pipeline rupture in Louisiana made headlines for a failure to appropriately notify impacted communities of the potentially deadly incident.

This legacy of risk is all Summit Carbon Solutions would provide for Iowa. Iowans are looking past the company’s faulty claims of climate and economic benefits, and see this project for what it is: a greenwashed scam to benefit rich executives and entrench the corporate interests driving the climate crisis.

Carbon capture projects in the U.S. have actually increased emissions, when accounting for all the dirty energy needed to power them—a far cry from the pollution reduction claims Summit is relying upon to sell its project to state and federal regulators. What’s more, Summit has committed to employing fewer than 200 people in Iowa for its project. Only 43 of those jobs are promised to continue beyond three years, and it remains unclear whether the company will follow through on its claims to use unionized labor. A few dozen people on Summit Carbon’s payroll would be the only lasting economic benefit in Iowa.

For too long, people connected with Summit Carbon have splashed cash in Des Moines to buy political influence and try to mask our overwhelming opposition. Nearly every top Republican in Iowa has cashed checks from Summit Agricultural Group’s founder and executive chairman Bruce Rastetter, including House Speaker Pat Grassley, Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver, and Governor Kim Reynolds.

But dirty industry money won’t win in Iowa. The state’s Democratic and Republican party platforms both oppose carbon pipelines and the use of eminent domain for private gain, respectively. Last month, 98 Iowa Democratic Party Rural Caucus members elevated that party platform to urge a stop to Summit’s carbon pipeline.

The fight to keep carbon pipelines out of Iowa is far from over. We invite all elected officials and candidates to sign Food & Water Action’s “No Carbon Pipeline Money Pledge” to show voters they stand with the people, not Summit’s scam. It’s a simple step politicians can take right now to show they’re serious about ending this industry’s chokehold on Iowa politics and keeping carbon capture pipelines out of our state.

Iowa voters interested in recruiting candidates for the pledge can join us here.

About the Author(s)

Michaelyn Mankel

  • nonprofits, also

    Thank you for your work on this important topic. I would like to see the same standard broadly applied to philanthropy and nonprofits, especially in view of the fact that lobbying arms of these entities exercise increasing control over key issues that affect us all. Here is a link to a relevant article: https://www.publicbooks.org/philanthropys-power-brokers/

  • The larger problem surrounding the carbon-pipeline issue remains...

    …and that problem is the massive ongoing degradation and destruction of Iowa natural resources by industrial agriculture. And mostly, that larger problem doesn’t even get discussed.

    Last night on the discussion that follows MARKET TO MARKET, an Iowa PBS farm program, a viewer asked if more land should be put in the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program), a program that helps water quality, soil health, and biodiversity. The only answer/assertion from the M to M panel was that putting more land in the CRP would cause rowcrop production to expand in Brazil, which would be bad because of lost market share. When money is the hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail.

Comments