Representative Mike Weisgram (R-24/Fort Pierre) regurgitates the lame Republican excuse for letting carbon dioxide corporations run roughshod over South Dakotans’ property rights—it’s not fair to change the rules for businesses in the middle of their operations. Rep. Weisgram addresses the unfairness that would have been created by 2023 House Bill 1133, which would have denied CO2 pipeliners the use of eminent domain:
Weisgram, a retired owner of a flooring store, said the legislation would have shut down the CO2 projects had it become state law. He looked at the question from a businessman’s perspective.
“There was just going to be a forfeiture of all the money they invested,” Weisgram said. “My principles of business said you just can’t change the game without offering some opportunity for a change order. I just don’t think that’s ethical” [Bob Mercer, “Blast at Onida Ethanol Plant Hasn’t Shifted CO2 Dispute,” KELO-TV, 2023.07.10].
Not ethical to make changes that might affect a business? Hmmm…
The farms along the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline route are businesses. They’ve invested in equipment and buildings and seed assuming their property was theirs to do with as they please. Don’t surveyors running heavy equipment through a farm, crushing crops, and digging holes in the farmers’ property change the game for those farmers?
Representative Weisgram himself sponsored 2023 House Bill 1135, which created new rules pertaining to transparency of prescription drug pricing. Among other provisions, HB 1135 (which sailed through House and Senate with only five dissenting votes) restricts the fees that pharmacy benefit managers may charge and increases their paperwork. Weisgram seems to have changed the game for the pharmacy business; is his now-enacted HB 1135 unethical?
Representative Weisgram also sponsored 2023 House Bill 1151, which would have created a paid family leave program for state employees and offered a group policy to non-state public and private employers to provide similar paid family leave for their employees. That bill, which got killed on first contact with committee, would certainly have changed the game for businesses and employees, and in a very good way. Does Weisgram think changing the family leave landscape is unethical?
And does this contention that changing the game is unethical apply only to businesses? What about families? Representative Weisgram voted for Representative Bethany Soye’s (R-9/Sioux Falls) 2023 House Bill 1080, which bans gender-affirming care for minors. Many families who were happily living and working and raising kids in South Dakota now have to travel to get health care for their kids or quit their jobs, sell their homes, and move to other, freer states. If it is unethical to change the game for corporations spending money on pipelines, is it not equally unethical to change the game for parents spending money on homes and health care?
Every law changes the game for somebody. If Representative Weisgram and his fellow CO2 pipeline apologists really believe that it is unethical to pass laws that change the game, then they’d better recant all of their past ayes and go to Pierre next January ready to vote nay on every bill that comes their way.
But Representative Weisgram won’t do that, because he doesn’t really believe what he’s saying. Changing the game with legislation is just fine in Weisgram’s book, as long as it changes the game in ways he and his special-interest friends like.
p.s.: In 2022, Weisgram received campaign contributions of $250 from the SD Ethanol Producers PAC (some of whose member ethanol businesses are partners in the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline) and $500 from the SD Corn Growers (who see carbon dioxide pipelines as important for boosting profits for their buyers in the ethanol industry)
This preferential treatment of his campaign donors by Mike Weisgram casts a shadow of doubt upon the integrity of all South Dakota elected officials arrogantly standing on the necks of helpless land owners.
It fosters an environment where the power of political influence can be bought and manipulated.
The crazy thing is that there are ways to convert CO2 to, drumroll… ethanol!
No co2 pipeline needed.
Look it up.
Former iowa magat 5th/4th dfistrict congressvarmint, Steve king, has some lawyers lined up to prevent carbon pipeline from being built. He wants to overturn 2005 Scotus case that allows private entities the use of eminent domain.
Ingrates like Weisgram are fast giving the old GOP Republican party red faces over their ineptitude and gratuitous attitude of running government. They are proving themselves inept at governing South Dakota.
What are Representative Weisgram’s opinions on human-caused CO2 pollution and climate change? Any legislator who supports the use of eminent domain on this boondoggle had better join hands with Al Gore and fully embrace the battle against climate change. If not, they are supporting the abuse of eminent domain to steal and devalue private properties to construct a hoax.
You can’t be a climate change denier and support projects whose sole function is to reduce CO2 pollution.
ethical. big word for a republican.
upsidedown is rightsideup, eh?
Hey Cory – long time reader, occasional commentator, always sign my name. Thanks for the site and hosting the comments. I’ve lobbied 33 years and it would be hard to find a legislator in Pierre that would give a vote on any issue because of a $250 or a $500 donation, no matter the issue. Either party / either side. It’s a fraction of their campaign cost, barely buys two tanks of gas, they spend much more personal money than that to serve, and they’re better than that. Anyone who infers otherwise is wrong, doesn’t know our legislators or our system, and certainly doesn’t know Weisgram. Mike is from Pierre and represents my district (District 24). I’ve known him 30+ years. He’s a thoughtful guy who listens to all sides, agonizes over hard decisions, tries the best he can to do the right thing, and was convinced to run because he’s selfless. He didn’t seek the office. Absolutely he has biases, but that’s because he was a business owner, paid taxes, had long time loyal employees who he took care of (and eventually sold the business to), and spent decades giving back to the community. For me, I think that business bias is in the best interest of all taxpayers. Others may disagree, but it’s easy and fairly lazy to label someone an ingrate or denier without knowing the person. It’s destructive when its offered, a bummer when someone believes it, and even worse when it’s inaccurate. Loud, baseless acrimony is part of the reason it’s hard to find good people to serve from either party because many of them just choose to avoid the noise.
Yeah, no. In South Dakota local control is Republican control so any bozo with an ‘R’ behind its name will go to Pierre and put stupid laws on the books.
Mr. Willard, it is what we get with the out-of-state name-callers. It just is.
Mr. Willard has quite a post here, don’t’ ‘cha think? First he claims he’s an expert witness on the field of lobbying. The rest is just fluffy compliments to someone he needs business favors from, quite often in fact.
Since you’ve “opened the door” to cross examination on the price it takes to, in your words Mr. Willard, persuade a legislator to “give a vote” how large a campaign donation would it require to get a legislator to “give a vote” for the CO2 pipeline?
If you say you don’t know than your testimony that $250 – $500 is way too low has no validity. If you say you don’t care to reveal that price, once again your testimony can’t be believed. If you say every legislator has a different price to “give a vote “ than we’re getting somewhere we need to get to to understand what’s really happening.
What say you, lobbyist Willard. How much campaign donation money does it take to get a legislator to “give a vote” for the CO2 pipeline. You do claim to be an expert so defend your testimony or withdraw your claim of expertise.
Thank you, sir.
In Rapid City grudznick is simply another word for Raeth hater.
lol. Earth hater, rather.
Free goat, grud: chow down!
I’ll take your goat, Lar, and give you back the bones of two more.
If you tell him, grud, Mr. Willard might learn about paragraph breaks
sx123
Ethanol can be converted to carbon dioxide? Oy vay! Since when? (You’ve gotta be kiddin??)
But if not: Complete oxidation of any carbon material results in carbon dioxide. Your body does it all the time which is why you exhale carbon dioxide (although your body also has the added ability to conserve and repurpose the carbon from fats, carbohydrates, and proteins into other carbon compounds for tissues and general bodily maintenance). Combustion engines oxidize fuel molecules which are carbon compounds to carbon dioxide (but only to carbon monoxide in oxygen deficient environments). A burning candle oxidizes the carbon compounds in wax to carbon dioxide. A blowtorch will oxidize the pure carbon of a diamond into carbon dioxide—a thermodynamically favorable process, but fortunately not a kinetically favorable process or diamonds wouldn’t be “forever” but would degrade faster than they do.
The trick might rather be to convert carbon dioxide to ethanol—but have no fear as chemists have long figured out how to do this as well as myriad other chemical transformations. Carbon dioxide conversion to ethanol can be done by the opposite of oxidation, namely the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide by hydrogen. With the caveat one has a concentrated source of hydrogen available, and the caveat one has a suitable catalyst, and the caveat that one has plenty of electricity for electrolysis of water to produce the necessary hydrogen, and the caveat that one has access to—for example—plenty of hydroelectric power and is situated in the right geogrphical environment. (The Nazis ran an entire industrial chemical industry on readily available coal and hydroelectric power from the Ruhr Valley, making all kinds of chemicals to sustain their economy, everything from Zyklon B to synthetic fuels).
And consider the Fischer–Tropsch process used in South Africa by SASOL in South Africa which has operated since 1950 on chemistries discovered by German chemists in the early 1900s, a process which ultiimately converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (aka “syngas”) into liquid hydrocarbons.
Or consider Gevo which is partnering with Summit Carbon Solutions to use the pipeline for their new jet fuel plant (Kyle Peters, lobbyist) to produce “sustainable jet fuel.” Nothing new from the standpoint of synthetic organic chemistry, although proprietary catalysts and engineering may be recent twists.
None of these chemical transformations is anything new to a synthetic organic chemist with knowledge of industrial chemistry processes. The point is that just because something is possible in terms of a chemical transformation is far from making it economically feasible. There are raw material considerations, transportation considerations, competition considerations, proximity to markets considerations….the list is long.
Unfortunately the popular press picks up on the latest from mainstream scientific publications and present findings as though they were ‘revolutionary.’ But the route to market of anything “new” is arduous and the success stories we see—as for General Electric’s Lexan® polycarbonate, later SABIC—are examples of products that happen to have survived the arduous process of getting a material to market. Like finding an intact T. rex skeleton considering the geological upheavals over time it would have to have survived.
Again, just because something is possible does in no way mean it’s going to be economically feasible, the wishful thinking of amateur ‘innovators’ and armchair Google-searchers aside. (Some yayhoo is bound to think we should use the Summit pipeline carbon dioxide to produce ethanol, oblivious to what is involved in doing so).
Nice elegy, Dave but Cory’s point is about Republicans toeing the scorched earth party line.
Mr. Willard, you would do well to follow Mr. DaveFN’s paragraph break style, as my close personal friend Lar points out. It might even help raise your score on the Seven Indisputable Levels of Lobbist (SILL) scale, where…let’s face it…you could use some help.
What’s the price to buy a legislator, Mr. Willard? You claim to know, Mr. Willard.
DaveFN- aren’t beet red pickled eggs the best discovery in summer snacks since the ice cream truck was invented? The gaseous conversions could be your best byproduct. Make you really say, “Oi vey!”
‘What’s the matter, smarttass you don’t know any effin Shakespeare?’ (:
DaveFN – SX123 said nowhere that ethanol can be converted to carbon dioxide.
SC124 asserted that CO2 can be converted to ethanol.
SX123 said to look it up so I did.
To convert CO2 (carbon dioxide) to ethanol, a multi-step process called carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is typically employed. Here’s a general outline of the key steps involved in the conversion process:
1. Carbon dioxide capture: The first step is to capture the CO2 emissions from industrial sources or directly from the atmosphere. Various methods can be used for this, including chemical absorption, adsorption, or membrane separation techniques.
2. Purification: Once captured, the CO2 needs to be purified to remove any impurities or contaminants that might hinder subsequent chemical reactions. Purification can be achieved through processes like compression, condensation, or chemical scrubbing.
3. Electrolysis or hydrogenation: The purified CO2 is then subjected to electrolysis or hydrogenation. Electrolysis involves running an electric current through a solution of CO2 and water, which breaks down the CO2 molecules into carbon monoxide (CO) or formic acid (HCOOH). Alternatively, hydrogenation can be employed, where CO2 reacts with hydrogen (H2) to produce water (H2O) and carbon monoxide (CO).
4. Catalytic conversion: The resulting carbon monoxide (CO) or formic acid (HCOOH) is then converted into ethanol. This conversion is typically achieved by using catalysts like metal oxides (such as copper or zinc oxide) or biological enzymes (like hydrogenase) to facilitate the chemical reactions. The catalysts help activate and speed up the conversion process.
5. Refining and purification: The ethanol produced from CO2 undergoes further refining and purification processes to remove any remaining impurities or by-products. Distillation, dehydration, or other separation techniques can be employed for this purpose.
6. Storage and utilization: Finally, the converted ethanol can be stored and utilized in various applications. Ethanol can be used as an alternative fuel, a precursor for the production of other chemicals, or as an ingredient in the pharmaceutical and beverage industries.
It’s important to note that the conversion of CO2 to ethanol is still a developing field, and various research and technological advancements are being made to improve the efficiency and scalability of the process.
That Mr. Willard stepped up to gloss over the not so civil war raging inside the SDGOP between the establishment and the far white wing washing its hands of Daschle Gas is remarkable in an obscure South Dakota blog.
PHL IV
We already have ChatGPT. We don’t need PHL IV to channel it. At a 3rd grade level, that is.
Listen up, folks! While carbon capture might not be the trendy talk of the town in today’s climate babble, it darn well deserves a fair shake. Embracing this fancy technology allows us to find some middle ground between environmental do-gooding and keeping our wallets intact. It’s high time we ditch the extremist mindset and start embracing sensible solutions that actually make sense. Let’s not let the hype of the moment blind us to the potential benefits that carbon capture brings to the table in tackling the convoluted mess we face nowadays.
DaveFU – Why does my phraseology algorithm detect that you’re using the exact same internet connection as Kurt Evans? How old is Earth? Hmmmm?
PS … I don’t use Chat GPT. How does it work?
so grudz, with your apparent climbing ‘on board’ of the carbon pipeline express as it seems to be taking place in south Dakota (and elsewhere) -what do YOU have to say in regards to their complete disdain for private property rights of landowners who the pipeline seeks to cross? That, and the use of the courts and local sheriffs to allow them entry onto private property-with no regard to owners. Will you allow a similar action of intrusion onto your ‘home sweet home’ in the city? I’m anxious to hear your reply, sir.
That grud is sounding more and more like Dan Lederman with every post makes overgodding and goats make sense in a Hebrew kinda way, if you get my shrift.
So what would not qualify for eminent domain — especially if I can get a few cooperative land owners to voluntarily sell to get the ball rolling? This new focus seems to put EVERYTHING fair game to call eminent domain for.
Thanks P. Aitch.
Using energy to dump co2 down a hole is a big waste and will surely increase the cost of ethanol production. Oil and natural gas producers are licking their chops.
If there are ways to utilize co2 at the source, that is a much better situation.
You’re welcome, SX123. It’s a pattern and it’s a pattern that’s proliferating. The Republican group behind this pipeline care zero about the environment. Just like ethanol producers care zero about the environment. The motivation for the pipeline is just to get the tax credits for CO2 recovery and disposal.
Thus, the way to end this pipeline is to end the tax credits for CO2 recovery and 86 ethanol subsidies.
Vote for Joe and all down ticket Dems and it’s a done deal.
Don’t cry, Danny Lederman.
You’ll find some other slimy way to shyster money from the middle-class workers.
P. Aitch makes the TKO comment that splays this subject out on the mats: Thus, the way to end this pipeline is to end the tax credits…. Pow! 1,2,3…Ding ding ding.
Stitch up that loop hole, and the opportunists with investment dollars to throw around might actually go throw that money into researching the electro magnetic energy surrounding our cells and figure out a way to amplify that energy for our thirsty needs, in a clean, responsible, feasible, cheap manner. The energy is here, no combustion necessary. We just need to harness it. Hell, divert the tax credits into K-12 math and science and watch what that investment can do.
I agree with Steve Willard in part. Obviously campaign donations of $250 or $500 are not bribes for one vote. Legislators, lobbyists and just about everyone knows that is illegal. If it happens it would be very, very rare, as rare as voter fraud. But donations do purchase something. They purchase easier access—a better chance of convincing a legislator to introduce, support or kill legislation on a whole range of issues that might be of concern to that company or group. Donations go to legislators who have demonstrated through their voting record or their positions on issues that they will generally support the legislative goals of that group. A donation comes with some expectation that the legislator will vote and continue to vote in a certain way most of the time in support of the group’s position on legislation.
That’s how South Dakota Sierra Club doled out its $100 donations to a few legislators each election season. I didn’t particularly like it when we got into that game. I thought someone who would vote for our issues would do it without the donation. But many said it was meant as a pat on the back to a legislator who cast some important votes our way. At best it allowed them to buy a few radio ads.
Well…bless old Grudznick for clarifying the issues. It’s support the Carbon Dioxide pipeline or be banished from the ancient, and omni-powerful GOP.
Well…where are the farmers in Mcpherson and Spink counties, who have voted a straight Republican ticket for 100 years, to go with their votes in state elections? The Democratic Party likely doesn’t even exist as a functioning entity in those counties.
I think it’s unlikely that they become political activists and name their own slate of county delegates to the Republican Convention and then work with newly activated farmers and private property activists within the convention to nominate and elect a slate of reformist candidates. It is possible, as the Republican apparatus in those counties is probably four old timers who meet in the back room of a cafe and name their county’s delegate slate over oatmeal. Given the political inertia of rural South Dakota, outside of a serious farm depression, I think the chances of such a reform movement in the Republican Party is remote.
From a friend working as a writer for Garrison Keillor:
Here in the heartland, there’s a certain way of thinking that’s been passed down through the generations. It’s a mindset that’s grounded in hard work, faith, and an acceptance of one’s place in the grand tapestry of life. And perhaps, just perhaps, it sheds some light on why farmers seem to be accepting of defeat and being told what to do.
You see, the life of a farmer is not an easy one. It’s a constant struggle against the whims of nature, from unpredictable weather patterns to the constant battle with pests and diseases that threaten to ruin a season’s worth of crops. Every day, they face uncertainty, hoping and praying for a fruitful harvest, but always knowing that the elements are beyond their control.
In the face of such adversity, it’s not surprising that farmers have developed a certain resilience, a deep-rooted understanding that sometimes, despite their best efforts, things just don’t turn out the way they’d hoped. They’ve seen their dreams go up in smoke, their fields barren and desolate. And yet, they persevere, picking up the pieces and starting anew with an unwavering determination.
But this acceptance of defeat, you see, it’s not an acceptance of failure. No, it’s a recognition that in this vast and unpredictable world, there are forces at play that are far beyond their control. And so, they adapt, they adjust, they humbly accept the lessons learned and move forward.
And what about being told what to do, you ask? Well, you see, farmers have a deep understanding of their role as caretakers of the land and stewards of their communities. They know that their actions have repercussions, not just for themselves, but for the wider world they inhabit. And so, they willingly accept guidance, whether it comes from agricultural experts, government regulations, or even their own neighbors.
They understand that there’s wisdom in collective knowledge, in listening to the advice of those who have walked the path before them. It’s not a surrender of autonomy, but rather a recognition that sometimes, the best way forward is to stand shoulder to shoulder with others who share the same struggles and aspirations.
So you see, my friends, the propensity of farmers to accept defeat and be told what to do is not a sign of weakness or subservience, but rather a testament to their resilience, their humility, and their unwavering commitment to their land, their livelihood, and their communities. It’s a mindset that’s shaped by the harsh realities of life on the farm, but also one that fosters a sense of unity, a shared purpose, and a steadfast hope for brighter days ahead.
In short: no group gets bent over and not even kissed like farmers do.
P Aitch-very, very well said.! One might add , tho, that memories among the group are long-and tho they’ve been “R’s” a long time, they recognize injustice too.
Surprise! The absence of environmental protection in South Dakota has prompted a polluter of biblical proportions to expand in Brookings.
https://brookingsregister.com/article/3m-plans-major-expansion-in-brookings
so willard, you like Weisgram’s Republican business ethics. maybe he has ethics. maybe Rupert Murdoch has ethics. what do you think?
i tend to believe Dems have ethics and nominate competent legislators. Repubs, not so much. They generally cheat. Both sides DON’T do it, buddy.
McConnell & Thune (these two torpedoed Merrick Garland’s SCOTUS NOMINATION.)
And:
Rounds (threatens to shoot Biden)
McCarthy (stupid)
Jordan (stupid)
Santos (really stupid)
Greene (stupid)
Bobert (stupid)
Gaetz (dangerous)
Hawley (dangerous)
ad nauseum….Hardly ethical people.
@SenJohnThune
Jul 11
It is deeply disturbing that so many Democrats – and Democrat leaders – are attacking the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
I hope that cooler heads will prevail before they do permanent damage to our system of government.
(Every week i illustrate Thune’s unfitness for office with his own vicious tweets. He is a polished dangerous red neck. Since then he has camouflaged his viciousness a tiny bit. Slightly more experienced than Noem.)
Willard?
Republican leadership — including
@elisestefanik
— wants to cut federal funding, including FEMA.
But when disaster strikes in their districts, they immediately run to FEMA to get that federal funding.
Daniel Goldman
@danielsgoldman
Congressman (NY-10); Former Lead Counsel, Trump Impeachment 1.0; AUSA, SDNY. Proud husband & father of 5 children. Gov’t account:
@RepDanGoldman
Ethics! You bet!!
Willard? Wouldn’t you like to save our democracy?
I remember the night HRC lost the 2016 election, sitting w/PennDems downtown at the hotel, 8th & Main St.
We WERE HORRIFIED! We KNEW, without knowing the precise details of the future from Jan 20 2016 until now. We KNEW the despicable person in Trump Republicans had managed to elect, by hook and by crook! We knew the character of Mitch McConnell, John Boehnor, John Thune, Mike Rounds, and held out hope young Dusty might turn out differently. We had been living in a corrupt Republican dominated little red state for too long NOT TO KNOW WHAT WAS COMING.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581
But Republicans are still saying, in full denial, after all we have been through:
“Either party / either side.…it’s easy and fairly lazy to label someone an ingrate or denier without knowing the person. It’s destructive when its offered, a bummer when someone believes it, and even worse when it’s inaccurate. Loud, baseless acrimony is part of the reason it’s hard to find good people to serve from either party because many of them just choose to avoid the noise.” Steve Willard
Republicans cannot defend their cheating our system of democracy. The business of the United States is democracy. Horrendous!
https://www.propublica.org/article/right-wing-activists-georgia-voter-challenges
“[Federalist Society pariah Leonard] Leo also joined [Dallas billionaire pal Harlan] Crow and [embittered SCOTUS Justice] Thomas during at least one undisclosed trip to the billionaire’s private resort in the Adirondacks.
A painting Crow commissioned depicts Leo at the resort alongside the justice and the billionaire.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/senators-ask-paul-singer-leonard-leo-accounting-gifts-supreme-court
And Mitch McConnell models for John Thune and claims:
@LeaderMcConnell
May 2
Democrats … upholding our institutions and protecting democracy. Yet they continue their reckless attacks against our courts. Today’s hearing on “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” was just another chapter in their campaign to undermine our federal judiciary.
He and Thune spin these bald faced lies pretty much all day every day.