These NGOs shouldn't be allowed to second guess what Congress & the President say is in our interests in the face of our climate emergency.

Law 360 is reporting this morning on an NGO petition to the Army Corps of Engineers demanding that it not apply a Nationwide Permit covering the construction of "pipelines that transport water, sewage, and ‘other substances’” to pipelines that would convey carbon dioxide from where it is generated to where it might be permanently captured or destroyed.

I have to admit that I'm skeptical about how much Greenhouse Gas capture will help us achieve the Greenhouse Gas reductions we need to achieve in in the time in which we need to achieve them in order to mitigate the climate emergency we're already experiencing.

But the NGOs' suggestion that capturing carbon dioxide is not in the “public interest” is going to be hard to sustain, as is the claim that the construction of pipelines that would carry carbon dioxide cause impacts to Waters of the United States different than the construction of pipelines carrying anything else.

Regarding the public interest, the NGOs' petition complains that Greenhouse Gas capture is only sustainable with huge subsidies which aren't in the public interest.  At the same time, they acknowledge that the Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States, provides “supercharged subsidies" for Greenhouse Gas capture.  I'm thinking that the unambiguous determination by two of the three branches of our Federal Government that something is so in the public interest that our tax dollars should pay for it is something the United States Army Corps of Engineers shouldn't second guess, even if many NGOs wish Congress and the President had made a different choice.

I should also note that this morning's papers also carry the news that BlackRock, one of the world’s biggest money managers, is investing $550 million in a carbon capture hub already under construction in West Texas, strongly suggesting that the private sector might have as much interest in Greenhouse Gas capture as the President and Congress. 

The NGOs' opinion about what a pipeline would carry is similarly irrelevant under the Federal law and regulations that are the reason for the Nationwide Permit.  Congress gave the Corps of Engineers the discretion to issue Nationwide Permits authorizing construction activities impacting Waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 if the construction activities “are similar in nature, cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the environment.”  The Corps of Engineers has determined that the construction of pipelines is such an activity and the NGOs' petition does not, because it cannot, indicate that the construction of a pipeline carrying carbon dioxide has any greater impacts on the Waters of the United States it touches than any other pipeline.

Of course, the NGOs threaten that, despite that, if the Corps of Engineers doesn't grant its petition, it may sue the Corps.  That such a suit is possible, and the effect of that possibility on the achievement of the Greeenhouse Gas reduction goals set by our Congress and our President, is something else Congress and the President need to do something about soon if we are to have any chance of achieving those goals in time.