To the Editor,

I am writing this letter in response to multiple articles promoting the carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline.

I would hope that no federal funds would be spent on this project. In my view, this is a long-term solution to a short-term problem. California has on its books a law that prohibits the sale of new vehicles with combustion engines beginning in 2035 which is not that far in the future. While this law will go into effect over time, I am sure that the average age of vehicles in California is considerably less than that of Iowa. The market for Iowa ethanol in California will be dropping at an even faster rate than it is now.

I object to the use of eminent domain for a private project. When fiber optics came to Iowa, they used the railroad right-of-way. By doing this they only had to deal with one landowner. However, I believe the reason that this precedent is not being followed is because of the dangers of the CO2 pipeline running through populated areas, not just the reduced cost of taking the most direct route.

In a year-end review in a Farm News edition there was an article about producing hemp in a greenhouse. The CO2 could be used in greenhouses to produce flowers, food and other high value products. This would be economic development.

Summit Carbon Solutions has not been forthcoming about the source of the revenue streams that make this project possible, even if it is us taxpayers.

John Waltzing

Belmond