SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
If the Midwest Carbon Express is built, residents across the Midwest will bear the risks associated with the pipeline, while its financial backers will reap the profits.
Iowa is the battle ground where the fate of world’s largest proposed carbon capture and storage pipeline is being decided. Summit Carbon Solutions intends to build a 2,000-mile pipeline to carry CO2 captured from ethanol plants across five states, to eventually inject and store it underground in North Dakota to supposedly reduce carbon emissions. But who truly stands to gain if the pipeline is built? A November 2022 report from the Oakland Institute, The Great Carbon Boondoggle, unmasked the billion-dollar financial interests and high-level political ties driving the project—despite opposition from a large and diverse coalition of Indigenous groups, farmers, and environmentalists.
The promoters of the project have failed to reckon with the evidence exposing carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a false climate solution. CCS projects have systematically overpromised and underdelivered. Despite billions of taxpayer dollars spent on CCS to date, the technology has failed to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, as it has "not been proven feasible or economic at scale." Crucially, the ability to capture and safely contain CO2 permanently underground is a dangerous uncertainty given CO2 must be stored for thousands of years without leaking to effectively reduce emissions.
Having failed to persuade enough landowners in Iowa to sign voluntary easements to construct the pipeline, Summit is now hoping to obtain the land through eminent domain, which will be decided by the three-member Iowa Utilities Board (IUB). There are legitimate concerns about the independence of the IUB given the connections each member has to Summit and its CEO, Bruce Rastetter—an agribusiness baron and conservative political influencer with a record of prioritizing profit over the public good. Though officially mandated to ensure Iowans benefit from infrastructure projects, the IUB has a troubling history of supporting controversial projects, including the Dakota Access Pipeline.
On January 17, 2023, a coalition of community organizations in Iowa delivered the Oakland Institute's exposé to the IUB, Summit's lawyer, and Governor Reynolds at the Iowa State Capitol. They made clear their opposition to carbon pipelines and called for meaningful action. Jaylen Cavil, Advocacy Director for the Des Moines Black Liberation Movement, started off the public comment with a resounding message to the IUB:
"Remember it is not just white landowners in rural Iowa who are concerned about these carbon pipelines, it is Black, Indigenous, and migrant Iowans across the state, who are concerned about the harmful impacts that these pipelines will have because of environmental racism… Do not just continue to pad the pockets of those who have put you in the seats. We know there are conflicts of interest here and we are asking you to ignore those and please listen to your mission and please do what is right for all Iowans."
Summit faces formidable opposition from Indigenous communities, who were not adequately consulted and are all too familiar with the devastation such projects bring. They are alarmed by the influx of transient pipeline construction workers. "Man-camps" built to house out-of-state workers for large construction, fossil fuel, or natural resource extraction projects in the past, increased violence towards Indigenous communities, especially women. The project poses additional threats to tribal reservations and Indigenous communities living near the pipeline route, including land degradation, disturbance to sacred sites, and the threat of a pipeline rupture. Commitment to protect the land and their communities is driving the mobilization of Indigenous groups.
Sikowis Nobiss, Founder and Executive Director of the Great Plains Action Society, let the IUB know what is at stake if they allow Summit to seize land for their project. "Eminent domain does not just affect the largely white landowner contingent that Summit is bullying for land," Nobiss said. " It affects every single person, living thing, and waterway in the state. There are urban centers, rural communities, and migrant towns that have not heard a thing about these pipelines, as the IUB is not making an effort to reach out to them."
Despite this opposition, the pipeline remains under consideration due to the wealthy financial interests backing the project. Summit's investors—a number of whom have a history of failed ventures and illicit financial conduct—are powerful entities who stand to make large gains from the project. Despite Summit's claims that the pipeline "will be good for our environment," several of them are embroiled in the fossil fuel industry. Key investors include TPG Rise Climate Fund (US$300 million); oil giant Continental Resources, Inc (US$250 million); Tiger Infrastructure Partners (US$100 million); and the South Korean natural gas firm SK E&S (US$110 million). Deere & Company, Summit Agriculture Group, and partner ethanol plants have also invested undisclosed amounts.
Investors have backed the project, lured by the massive profits they expect from the federal government. The project's economic profitability relies heavily on federal tax credits, grants and loans, and state-led incentives like low-carbon fuel markets. Whereas Summit boasts about the project's contribution to tax revenue, claiming it will pay $371 million in federal, state, and local taxes between 2022 and 2024, it will actually claim over $1 billion in 45Q tax credits annually—or $12 billion over a 12-year period. Recent federal legislation – including the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—pours money into carbon sequestration projects as a key strategy to reduce emissions. This flow of public money effectively subsidizes both the fossil fuel and ethanol industries to produce more fuel. While ethanol has been touted as better for the environment, recent research shows that it is actually 24 percent more carbon-intensive than gasoline. Even worse, the 45Q tax credit does not require the carbon to be permanently stored, allowing it to be used in a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR), where instead of storing the captured carbon, it is injected into depleted underground oil reservoirs to boost oil production. Currently, an astonishing 95 percent of captured carbon is in the U.S. is used for EOR.
After delivering the report and public comments to the IUB, the delegation visited Summit's lawyer and confronted him with the report. The day of mobilization concluded at the Iowa State Capitol where speakers from Great Plains Action Society, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Food & Water Watch, and high-school to elderly citizens shared the numerous reasons for their opposition. The chants of "Hey-Hey-Ho-Ho, These Carbon Pipelines Got to Go!" echoed in the legislative chambers with the message that the people will not be ignored.
If the Midwest Carbon Express is built, residents across the Midwest will bear the risks associated with the pipeline—potential leaks and ruptures, decreased property and crop values, increased violence against Indigenous Peoples—while Summit Carbon Solutions, its financial backers, and Bruce Rastetter will reap the profits. This is why, despite the David vs. Goliath nature of this fight, impacted communities across the Midwest have taken a stand and will not back down until this project is defeated.
The United States is moving fast on climate change--in the wrong direction. The Energy Information Agency forecasts that by 2023, the nation will set a new annual record for oil extraction: 4.6 billion barrels. Plans to build more than 200 new natural gas power plants are in the works. More than 130 new oil and gas pipelines now under development will carry enough fuel to increase national emissions by 10 percent--560 million metric tons per year.
If that nightmare scenario unfolds, local and regional activism will not only become more essential than ever; it could be the nation's only route to climate mitigation and adaptation.
Now, freaked out by high fuel prices, the Democratic majority in Congress is pushing to accelerate this fossil fuel rush while President Biden rushes, hat in hand, to Saudi Arabia, forgetting that the kingdom is supposed to be a pariah. Furthermore, as Robinson Meyer recently wrote in The Atlantic, the party's leadership seems blissfully unbothered by the fact that Congress has failed to pass even the weakest of laws to curb climate catastrophe. And if the Democrats--having been unable to defend either voters' rights or life on Earth over the past year and a half--lose their congressional majority to the oily authoritarians in November, our already dim hopes for the federal government to reverse course and start phasing out fossil fuels could fade away altogether.
If that nightmare scenario unfolds, local and regional activism will not only become more essential than ever; it could be the nation's only route to climate mitigation and adaptation. As the republic teeters on a knife edge in coming months, "In Real Time" will be recognizing grassroots movements across the country that stand as exemplars for collective climate action. Climate is not always the chief focus of such struggles, but the movements' strategies and methods are deeply relevant.
I'll begin this month with two such examples: Native struggles against fossil fuel infrastructure and the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union.
Keeping Turtle Island's oil and gas in the ground
Last year, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) and Oil Change International reported on seventeen struggles against fossil fuel infrastructure across North America that were either ongoing or had already succeeded. The potential impact of such actions on greenhouse gas emissions, they concluded, was staggering. "If [all of] these struggles prove successful," they wrote, "this would mean Indigenous resistance will have stopped greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to nearly one-quarter of annual total U.S. and Canadian emissions." An emissions reduction of that size would be like shuttering 400 coal-fired power plants or taking 345 million passenger vehicles off the road--more than all the coal plants or cars in North America. IEN wanted the continent's governments and citizens to do one thing:
[R]ecognize the impact of Indigenous leadership in confronting climate chaos and its primary drivers. We hope that such settlers, allies or not, come to stand with Indigenous Peoples and honor the inherent rights of the first peoples of Turtle Island--the land currently called North America--by implementing clear policies and procedures . . . and by ending fossil fuel expansion once and for all.
Here are just a few of the campaigns included in IEN's analysis:
The infamous Keystone XL pipeline project, which would have carried oil from Canada's tar sands south through the United States, was finally killed in 2021 after a years-long struggle led by Indigenous communities on both sides of the border.
The White Earth Band of Ojibwe continues trying to shut down the 340-mile-long Line 3 oil pipeline in Minnesota, which has already severely damaged at least three aquifers. On March 20, 2022 in the worst incident, 300 million gallons of groundwater spilled from the aquifer. The battle continues.
In 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe prevailed in the epic struggle they had led against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, but their victory in the face of appalling state violence was overturned the next year by the Trump administration. Now, tribal groups and white landowners are applying lessons learned in that struggle to block a different kind of pipeline in the same part of the country: the 2,000-mile Midwest Carbon Express Pipeline. The purpose of the pipeline would be to pump carbon dioxide collected from refineries producing climate-unfriendly fuel, ethanol, to underground storage sites throughout the region. The pipeline would not only cause extensive ecological degradation, it would also be a threat to human health in the areas it traverses.
Indigenous communities and their allies succeeded in completely scuttling a proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline through West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Although only about 1 percent of North Carolinians belong to Indigenous communities, an estimated 13 percent of people who would have been harmed along the pipeline's route through the state identified as Native American.
The Trans-Pecos gas pipeline runs about 150 miles through Texas out of the Permian Basin, home to gargantuan reserves of oil and gas that, if burned, could produce 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide--roughly equivalent to a year and a half of humanity's total carbon dioxide emissions from all sources. The Society of Native Nations has contested this pipeline from the start, significantly slowing but so far not halting the pipeline's construction or operation.
Native communities, says IEN, will continue "fighting through lived values and principles to keep fossil fuels in the ground and protect Turtle Island."
In the front of the bus
Preventing climate catastrophe requires not only keeping oil in the ground but also keeping private vehicles off the streets and compensating for their absence with public transportation, bikeways, and walkways. Car use has been reduced this way only in a limited number of places in the United States. And people who have low personal carbon emissions because they can't afford the many costs of car ownership are obliged to commute, often over long distances, in rundown, crowded buses that might show up at your stop once an hour, if you're lucky (and that cost more every year to ride). Fixing public transportation needs to be a fast-lane issue for both climate mitigation and protecting human rights.
For 30 years, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union has been fighting the racism that they argue is built into the city's public transit. It's an epic struggle, still far from over. In a report from the 1990s, the union noted that the city's dirty, dilapidated buses, many providing unreliable service to low-income areas, carried 350,000 riders per day, more than 80 percent of them Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander. Meanwhile, the city's clean, new rail system was carrying only 26,000 riders per day, a majority of them white and middle class. Public subsidies were less than a dollar per bus passenger, compared with $5 to $25 per rail passenger.
Based on this and other evidence, the Bus Riders Union accused the L.A. Metropolitan Transit Authority of taking funds intended for the bus system and using them to cover construction and operation expenses for the always over-budget and underused rail system. Union founder Eric Mann wrote at the time that these disparities grew out of a longstanding philosophy within the bus system. It was, he said,
based primarily on the importance of the "choice rider." According to this line of argument . . . the main purpose of public transportation is to reduce congestion and auto emissions. Thus, it would be precisely the suburban car rider who would be targeted to ride public transportation. According to this argument, the choice rider who lives in the suburbs and prefers to drive his/her car must be attracted by better and more convenient service. On the other hand, according to the theory, services do not need to be attractive to gain the ridership of the transit-dependent since, by definition, they have no choice.
In 1994, the union took the MTA to court to block further fare increases and service cuts, accusing the agency of violating a law that forbids using federal public transportation funds in a racist manner. The court sided with the union, issuing a consent decree under which the parties were to negotiate a plan. Dubbed "Billions for Buses" by the union, the plan eventually lowered fares, replaced high-polluting diesel buses with new ones run on natural gas (no electric buses were available then), and added a million hours of annual service. But when the consent decree expired in 2006, MTA went back to raising fares and cutting service.
Tired of being taken for a ride by the city, the union scored another big upset victory in 2012, when it organized a get-out-the-vote coalition to defeat a ballot initiative called Measure J. Had it passed, Measure J would have allocated $90 billion of local government funds to rail and highway projects. It included freeway expansion in the already freeway-choked city. Mann wrote that passage of Measure J also would inevitably have led to "crippling fare increases and services for the city's bus riders," whose numbers had risen by then to half a million, and who had a median income of only $14,000 per year. More than 80 percent continued to be people of color.
The defeat of Measure J was a big victory, but a decade later the struggle continues. Last year, Bus Riders Union organizer Channing Martinez wrote about how the MTA had continued its abuse of low-income residents, even scuttling a plan that would have provided free public transportation for K-12 and community college students. He laid out the union's strategy for carrying on the struggle into the 2020s: continue spending lots of time riding the buses to organize, make more alliances, and keep the heat turned up on local officials.
The transformation of L.A.'s public transit is not yet a reality. Bus ridership was falling even before COVID-19 struck, thanks to a classic feedback loop. The city's infamous, and increasing, traffic congestion bogs down buses even more than cars, leading more bus riders to go back to driving.. Congestion then gets worse, and the bus system loses even more riders.
Public transit advocates told the Los Angeles Times that "the only lasting solution . . . is to carve out space for buses on major streets using bus-only lanes and bus rapid transit." That would improve bus service immensely and leave less space for driving and parking cars, prompting more people to take the bus. These and other solid policies are needed to accomplish what the Bus Riders Union has been demanding for three decades: an adequate system of low-emissions buses providing high-quality service to the whole city--especially to the low-income communities who have always contributed the least to global warming.
Whether it's carried out by a local movement such as the L.A. Bus Riders Union or continent-spanning drives like the Native campaigns against Big Oil and Gas, no single effort can snuff out fossil fuel extraction and consumption on its own. In the absence of a federal phase-out, however, a multiplicity of grassroots efforts like these and others, popping up and spreading across the country like bermudagrass in June, are more essential than ever.
This essay was originally published by City Lights Books as part of its "In Real Time" series.