Vivek Ramasamy: Eminent domain for CO2 pipelines is wrong, and unconstitutional

Climate change fanatics revel in predicting that catastrophic weather events will destroy crops and hurt farmers, but bad climate change policies are now literally in the backyards of Iowa farmers. I’ve met Iowa farmers whose private property is about to be seized via eminent domain for a carbon capture pipeline, driven by federal subsidies that enjoy bipartisan support.

President Joe Biden expanded these federal subsidies — previously signed into law by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump — to privately owned firms planning to construct CO2 pipelines to transport carbon dioxide generated by Iowa’s ethanol plants to be buried underground.Of course, it’s indefensible to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the capture of carbon dioxide in the name of climate change. It’s even more disturbing that many farmers do not consent to the construction of this pipeline across its land and the big-money pipeline companies are using eminent domain to force these farmers.

This is morally wrong. It’s also unconstitutional.

The Fifth Amendment says, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Meaning private property cannot be taken for private use at all. Then, what constitutes a “public use”?

The Supreme Court’s most significant pronouncement on this issue, Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, was a constitutional disaster — holding that the city of New London, Connecticut, could condemn homes and hand the land to Pfizer for a new corporate campus. The majority stated the benefits of economic growth and job creation constituted a “public use” that justified the private taking.

But four justices dissented, including Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She warned of a reverse Robin Hood effect, where those with the most money and power — like developers or private equity funds — could forcibly take other people’s land to enrich themselves.

Iowa’s Supreme Court adopted O’Connor’s reading of the Fifth Amendment: To take land, a project must serve the “public … necessity.” Job creation and economic growth is not enough.

Register exclusive: Iowa Caucus candidates in their own words on the issues

• Ryan Binkley: Bidenomics is widening the wealth gap, and we have to stop it

• Ron DeSantis: Immigrants are overwhelming us; I will control the border

• Nikki Haley: Ending reckless spending will boost our economy and stop inflation

• Vivek Ramaswamy: Eminent domain for CO2 pipelines is wrong, and unconstitutional

• Asa Hutchinson: America should reward work; I know how to empower our workers

• Donald Trump: This is how I will end Joe Biden's border disaster on day one

Pipelines for carbon sequestration don’t meet this standard. Iowans have prospered since the state’s founding in 1846 without shuffling carbon dioxide to an underground landfill in North Dakota. To the contrary, CO2 leakage underground is widely believed to reduce crop yields, and pipeline leaks have led to mass hospitalization.

That the GOP establishment has been complicit in the unconstitutional involuntary seizure of private property is deafening. In a recent Iowa town hall, Ron DeSantis said eminent domain is needed in energy pipeline projects. Other candidates have shamefully sidestepped this issue.

I’m the only major GOP presidential candidate to publicly oppose the use of eminent domain to construct these CO2 pipelines. I pledge, if elected, to withhold federal subsidies from any recipient that use eminent domain to build CO2 pipelines. If the government-industrial complex successfully uses eminent domain for the Iowa CO2 pipeline, there’s nothing to stop them from using it to take your gas stoves next. That’s not hyperbole — that’s the ugly logical conclusion of where this road ends.

Vivek Ramaswamy is a Republican candidate for president. The entrepreneur has worked in the biotech field.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Vivek Ramaswamy: Don't let pipeline companies seize private property