Submission by Kathleen Marquardt, American Policy Center

A Pennsylvania reader contacted us after hearing rumors about a carbon capture pipeline (CCS) project supposedly coming to Pennsylvania. He wanted to know where it would be. He had asked officials but was told there weren’t any such projects currently in the works. My research turned up a report titled “Potential Near-Term Candidate CCS Industrial Facilities in Pennsylvania” (with estimated capturable emissions and a range of capture costs).

However, the information I found was vague—there were companies requesting information but not expressing any intent to move forward. The best response one gets is the official line:

“While there are no commercial CCS projects operating or under development in Pennsylvania, there are some laboratory and small pilot projects underway.”

Right now, Pennsylvania should be grateful that it doesn’t have one—and should immediately take action to ensure one never even gets put on the table. The number one tool to protect your property rights and keep carbon capture pipelines away is to deny the use of eminent domain. Those pushing for these pipelines want your property even more than they want the pipeline—it’s just the camel’s nose under the tent.

We are only beginning to see the dangers of CCS.
For over thirty years, we have been informing people that there is no manmade global warming problem because:
a) the Earth isn’t warming, and
b) the whole myth of global warming/climate change was dreamed up by a faction that wants to control all aspects of life on Earth.

In the report “Understanding Carbon Capture and Storage Prospects in Pennsylvania,” we’re informed that, because the state ranks 4th in carbon emissions—due to the Commonwealth’s robust fossil fuel-based energy generation and industrial economy—

“Carbon capture and storage is critical to near-term decarbonization…”
“Carbon capture and storage is particularly important for decarbonizing hard-to-abate industries in Pennsylvania, including steel, cement, and petrochemical production. These sectors have few or no alternative decarbonization options due to inherent process emissions that occur during chemical reactions, such as the calcination of limestone to produce calcium oxide for cement or the ‘route for primary steel production.’”

But Pennsylvania faces critical hurdles before jumping into the latest fad for reaching Net Zero—

“a target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Global net emissions of carbon dioxide will need to fall to net zero by 2050.”

While Pennsylvania potentially has enough capacity to sequester the equivalent of all its direct CO₂ emissions, the study admits:

“However, these high-level estimates likely far exceed realistic commercial storage potential, as they do not factor in field-measured injectivity, which is the ease with which fluids like carbon dioxide can flow through geologic formations. To better understand and verify storage potential in Pennsylvania, a more detailed geologic assessment is necessary.”

This is accompanied by a table (Table 2) that provides a summary of “potential theoretical CO₂ storage capacity in Pennsylvania’s saline aquifers.” Note the words potential and theoretical. In my opinion, those are key—the area isn’t even prime for carbon storage. The table even states:

“These formations are mostly characterized by very low permeability, which may make CO₂ injection at commercially viable rates challenging. Existing data is limited, and additional data will be required to determine the viability of these formations for commercial-scale storage at large facilities.”

The bigger question here is: Why are states—why is anyone—still pursuing ways to mitigate CO₂?

Real science has long shown us that we—and the plants and animals on this planet—cannot live without CO₂. The answer is simple: money and, more importantly, control—control over the entire world. And we’ve known this from the beginning. But no one wanted to listen. It was far more exciting to think the world would end if we didn’t do everything possible to stop global warming. Even Al Gore knew. But money and power are the ultimate aphrodisiacs.

Numerous renowned scientists have spoken out against the manmade global warming hoax. One of the first and foremost was S. Fred Singer, who (to keep his resume short) was Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, founder and president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, and an early space researcher and first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service. In fact, hundreds of scientists spoke out against it—but the Left and its lackeys in the mainstream media and federal government agencies held the power.

Another aspect is the history of global warming.

Even when lies were defeated in court, they persisted outside it. Remember “Exxon Knew”? That was a hot item. New York City sued ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell for “misleading the public about their products and their commitment to renewable energy and fighting climate change.” Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel found no proof that the oil companies and the defendant, the American Petroleum Institute, conducted “greenwashing” campaigns, including statements about clean energy and alternative energy, to boost fossil fuel sales in the city. The New York Post ran a headline: “New York AG’s office totally disgraced itself in the Exxon trial.” Yet the Left, counting on public ignorance of the verdict, has continued to use “Exxon Knew” to attack fossil fuel companies and their supporters.

Today, a large portion of society suffers from eco-anxiety. Yes, really! This nonexistent manmade global warming hype has terrified people for decades. Don’t believe it’s a lie? Would you believe a founder of Greenpeace? Dr. Patrick Moore admits it. He states:

“One of my missions is to turn on its head the idea that carbon dioxide is somehow dangerous, when, in fact, it is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, and without it this would be a dead planet. So, I say, not only is carbon dioxide good, it is essential.”

So I ask again: Why would Pennsylvania—or any other state—want to allow carbon capture pipelines?

The only reason I can imagine is kickbacks. Why else would officials allow a dangerous system to capture something vital to life, bury it underground—often on private land taken via eminent domain—and risk explosions near the homes of the former landowners?

Don’t believe me? Robert Powell sent me this video: WATCH HERE

We’re talking about Pennsylvania, but Tom DeWeese pointed out that Washington, Pennsylvania, is close to both Wheeling, West Virginia, and Marietta, Ohio. So citizens of those states should join forces with like-minded Pennsylvanians to prevent any carbon capture from happening near them.

It’s time to live with the truth, not lies. The truth doesn’t steal property. It saves billions of dollars, millions of eagles, whales, and other endangered wildlife—and human lives. How? By exposing the lies that cow farts destroy the planet. We don’t need to eat bugs. We must stop geoengineering that is harming our atmosphere, crops, water, and people. Think of the money saved by avoiding poisons, which could instead rebuild our treasury and improve public health. And think of the savings by not spending on carbon capture pipelines, solar and wind farms.

Let’s live without lies that divide us because one faction believes them and wants to ban meat and promote Teslas. I, for one, can’t imagine living without bacon and steak. I can’t afford a Tesla, but I’d love to have my old Sunbeam Tiger to enjoy on the Tail of the Dragon.

If we succeed in exposing this enormous lie, everyone’s life would improve—and millions could regain their mental health instead of believing the sky will fall if we breathe oxygen.