South Dakota Corn Growers Association Adopts Policy on Carbon Pipelines
Sioux Falls, SD, January 22, 2024 – The South Dakota Corn Growers Association (SDCGA) adopted policy on the environmental and economic benefits of CO2 pipelines and related property rights issues at their Annual Meeting in Sioux Falls on Saturday, January 20, 2024. The policies acknowledge the important economic role of the pipeline in meeting the demands of consumers and future customers.
Dave Ellens, President of the SDCGA shares, “Our membership supports policies that facilitate the potential for continued and improved demand for corn grind here in South Dakota. The SDCGA will also work towards and back solutions that help to incentivize voluntary easements.”
The two resolutions passed are:
- Part of SDCGA’s core mission is to support in-state corn grind, including helping to ensure that opportunities exist for future market development for value-added corn products within South Dakota. Because of that mission, we support carbon pipelines to lower the carbon intensity score of ethanol plants. It is also imperative that the processes used to complete these projects show respect for landowners’ property rights. We believe eminent domain, while sometimes necessary, should be used as a tool of last resort.
- We support carbon capture and transportation technology that increases the profitability and financial sustainability of South Dakota corn producers.
About South Dakota Corn Growers Association: Farmer Led and South Dakota Focused
South Dakota corn producers formed the SDCGA membership organization in 1986 to serve as a collective voice on issues at the state and national levels. The state is divided into nine districts for representation. SDCGA board of directors are elected by fellow South Dakota corn producers from their respective districts. SDCGA meets annually to pass resolutions and hold board elections.
The South Dakota Corn Growers Association can adopt any policy they want but until it is their land that is being threatened no one cares what their opinion is.
Read the constitution of the United States and of South Dakota.
Property owners are protected.
Over the lifetime of the project, there is a Billion dollars at stake for investors. It can’t happen without a “taking” of land, and profits, from South Dakotans. The Billion dollars comes out of the pocket and sacrifice of South Dakotans who receive a very marginal return. It is good to be wealthy.
All done in the name of climate change, a hoax to control.
Why not just let the plants and trees consume the “carbon”? Like have done for hundreds and thousands of years? Seems to me that a few, (with financial gains at stake), want this to happen? My land is not for sale.
Maybe Christopher it’s because there is more carbon dioxide being output than what plants can naturally intake. Look up ocean acidification. The problem with climate change is that it is changing faster than the planets ecosystems can adapt.
How do you know this???…
Here’s a good starting spot, if you really want to have a dive into the reference materials.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
The big lie is that land is being taken. It’s a freaking easement. Get over yourselves. We all have easements on our properties. You don’t lose your land. You still have your land and get to use it. There’s just a pipe underground. I’m sick of these whiners crying about how they are having their land stolen.
Unfortunately, “anonymous” has been told a big lie. Summit Carbon Solutions has filed over 160 condemnation lawsuit against South Dakota landowners to take their land for a pipeline. The easement that has been referred to severely limits the landowners ability to improve the land over and near the pipeline including improvements such as drain tile. Forget about building anything within the easement because that is not allowed. And by the way, forget about having insurance coverage for a pipeline because there isn’t any available so the risk falls in the landowner.
No eminent domain for private gain is posting via the internet that was put in the ground via eminent domain and funds private profits. This is why no one takes you serious.
Are you suggesting the internet has no utility to the public? I think everyone would disagree with you. Now underground carbon in ND, I can’t think of any good that would do me.
“I can’t think” would suffice.
No, I’m saying eminent domain has been used for public benefit and private gain for years. The internet should be classified as a utility and regulated to provide consumers the protections they deserve. I’d be all for net neutrality since we are paying for their infrastructure through grants and tax dollars. If you can’t think of why allowing ethanol production to remain feasible and supporting agriculture doesn’t benefit you then I am not sure you are worth the time to explain it to. I look forward to a pipeline that can be expanded to allow for sequestration in grasslands and crp and have more revenue potential for landowners. Maybe we can even frack a few wells with high pressure CO2. The tech is here and it isn’t going anywhere. This is far bigger than people understand.
If this is such a necessary cause and if it’s not done the world will end as we know it, why doesn’t Summit make an offer that make it worthwhile to the landowners? Such as $X up front for every acre of land used for the pipeline and a percentage of the gross proceeds of Summit paid to the landowners every year forevermore?
The reason for ethanol fuel production was that it was good for the environment. Now we need co2 pipelines because ethanol fuel production is bad for the environment? Plants take CO2 out of the environment and more CO2 in the environment causes more plant growth (that is why they pump CO2 into greenhouses) . I trust plants and nature to control the environment more than people. People have trouble measuring the environment (a lot of variable effecting the environment) so I think it is hard to believe the same people are going to control the environment.
No, we really don’t have issues measuring various environmental variables. We’re able to measure CO2 levels and other atmospheric data going back over 800,000 years thanks to Antarctic ice deposits. We can put together what climates have changed thanks to geologic deposits, fossils, and in recent enough cases human archeological sites.
The only issue is forecasting just how much various climates and ecosystems will change, but the answer thus far with nearly all models is it isn’t good for our civilization if we don’t take action.
CO2 is not a risk! These are statements made by Dr Happer and Dr Lindzen. See below link for further details and their credentials..
The Scientific Method Proves There Is No Risk That Fossil Fuels and Carbon Dioxide Will Cause Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather.
• All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data.
• 600 million years of data prove that today’s CO2 level of 420 parts per million (ppm) is very low, not high.
• 600 million years of data show that higher levels of CO2 do not cause or even correlate with higher temperatures.
• Even at today’s relatively low levels, atmospheric CO2 is now “heavily saturated,” in physics terms, meaning that additional increases in atmospheric CO2 can have little warming effect.
https://co2coalition.org/publications/16417/
The problem with the CO2 Coalition is that it was founded and currently lead by former Petroleum Industry CEOs. The linked publication has sone nice quotes from Feynman, and the professors emeritus have solid resumes, but nice quotes do not a scientific study make. The data is also presented in a partisan manner to say the least.
Keeping the whole of the geologic record is fine and dandy, but they present only CO2 records. There are plenty of other greenhouse gasses, such as methane, that they ommit. CO2 is the most important at the moment because it is being released by activity that we can directly identify and control. They also do not look at the timeframe that humanity has begin agricultural endevors. CO2 levels are at the highest in humanity’s history. The Earth will be fine in the long run if nothing is done amd the climate changes, but we won’t. Maybe you’re fine leaving the world a worse place than when you found it, but hopefully most people are not.
CO2 is not the most important, it’s effect is minimal. CO2 is controlled by its own equilibrium.. We can not control the major sources of CO2. But we are ruining the economy and way of life with efforts to control CO2 which is not a problem. Are you saying agriculture is causing the CO2 “problem”? Are you saying that humans are the “problem”?. Are you saying you want to control methane production, then why are you concentrating on CO2? What are the sources of the information you make your CO2 decisions on? What perimeters are you watching that prove CO2 is causing humanities demise?