- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Hayride Piece: Carbon Capture is pro-Louisiana, pro-energy; conservatives should promote
Posted on 5/14/26 at 8:57 am
Posted on 5/14/26 at 8:57 am
quote:
There’s a tell in Louisiana politics you can’t ignore: when the people who’ve spent years trying to shut down oil and gas start nodding along with you, it’s time to ask why. That’s where John Fleming finds himself on carbon capture and it’s not a good place to be.
This isn’t some abstract policy fight. Carbon capture is quickly becoming one of the largest economic opportunities Louisiana has – tens of billions in investment, thousands of jobs, and a way to keep the backbone of our economy competitive in a world that isn’t backing off energy demands. It’s the kind of thing a serious pro-Louisiana, pro-energy conservative would fight to lead on.
Fleming used to understand that. Now he’s flipped, and the company he’s keeping tells you everything.
The loudest opposition to carbon capture in Louisiana hasn’t come from conservative energy advocates. It’s come from the same network of environmental activists and NGOs that have spent years fighting pipelines, suing to block industrial projects, and pushing policies designed to phase out fossil fuels altogether. These are not neutral actors. They are openly hostile to the industry that built this state. Which makes it more than a little strange that Fleming’s rhetoric now lines up so neatly with theirs.
quote:
If Louisiana embraces carbon capture, we secure our place as a global energy leader for decades to come. If we don’t, those projects – and the jobs, tax base, and growth that come with them – don’t just vanish. They go somewhere else. Texas would be happy to take them and overseas competitors are building out their own capacity as fast as they can. Capital doesn’t wait around for political indecision. It moves.
LINK
Interesting how carbon capture or sequestration has become a huge focal point in this U.S. Senate race, though the Class XI permitting is under the jurisdiction of the LA Dept of Natural Resources. The tax credit (subsidy) funding is federal dollars, though.
There are projects in Texas being proposed, even onshore, but I don’t think the issue has been mentioned a single time in the current TX U.S. Senate race for Cornyn’s seat.
8
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:05 am to ragincajun03
Check must have come through.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:17 am to ragincajun03
Carbon capture has frick-all to do with energy production, it has everything to do with the company capturing carbon for Q45 tax credits. The shorter version of this is that it's another avenue to cultivate dependency on the federal government.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:19 am to ragincajun03
Not much different than John Stossel promoting data centers....go figure!
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:19 am to kingbob
Letterkenny: To be fairrrrr….
This was a guest editorial on The Hayride written by a Charles Keenan. I have no idea if Hayride’s owner, Scott McKay, supports the whole carbon capture thing.
This was a guest editorial on The Hayride written by a Charles Keenan. I have no idea if Hayride’s owner, Scott McKay, supports the whole carbon capture thing.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:21 am to Bard
Not a fan of carbon capture.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:25 am to ragincajun03
I think this is a solid breakdown
Supporting carbon capture is the traditional conservative position
Opposing carbon capture is the populist position by conservatives
Supporting carbon capture is the traditional conservative position
Opposing carbon capture is the populist position by conservatives
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think this is a solid breakdown
Supporting carbon capture is the traditional conservative position
Opposing carbon capture is the populist position by conservatives
What would the progressive position be?
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:46 am to Azkiger
More closely aligned to the populists than traditional conservatives, because, with populists, expect populism.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 9:52 am to ragincajun03
Holy spin batman. Charles Keenan took a cheap shot at Fleming.
Fleming understands no one wants this. It's hugely unpopular. He's not aligning with anyone but his constituents.
Fleming understands no one wants this. It's hugely unpopular. He's not aligning with anyone but his constituents.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:02 am to ragincajun03
carbon capture is a waste of money and a violation of chemical and physics basic laws. Putting money in that is a sure lose
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:05 am to loogaroo
quote:
Charles Keenan took a cheap shot at Fleming.
Who is Charles Keenan?
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Supporting carbon capture is the traditional conservative position
Opposing carbon capture is the populist position by conservatives
So the conservative position should be using federal tax dollars to prop up a business venture that otherwise would not be economical without said federal money support?
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
More closely aligned to the populists than traditional conservatives, because, with populists, expect populism.
Explain why opposing carbon capture is "populism".
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:12 am to ragincajun03
Wowww talk about a 180 the hayride pulled. They definitely got paid.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:13 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Letterkenny: To be fairrrrr…. This was a guest editorial on The Hayride written by a Charles Keenan. I have no idea if Hayride’s owner, Scott McKay, supports the whole carbon capture thing.
Ok that makes more sense. Scott was against it a year ago
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think this is a solid breakdown Supporting carbon capture is the traditional conservative position Opposing carbon capture is the populist position by conservatives
Holy retard Batman. Carbon capture is 100% pointless besides giving tax credits ie taking from the citizens. Unless you believe in climate science fairy tales which I’m sure you do as a big supporter of Al gore
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
The plain fact, is carbon capture would not exist without taxpayer subsidies. It is unicorn farts and pixie dust to appease the environmentalists, and the big oil companies played fed and state gov like a fiddle. It is only valuable if it can be stored which requires a lot of power, that will subsequently increase utility costs.
Not sure how opposing taxpayer funded boondoggles became a populist idea for you, but anything to be a contrarian is par for the course with you.
Not sure how opposing taxpayer funded boondoggles became a populist idea for you, but anything to be a contrarian is par for the course with you.
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:19 am to BugAC
quote:
Real-world issues with the funding
Fraud and weak verification: Audits (e.g., 2020 Treasury/IRS) found ~87–90% of early claims (hundreds of millions to ~$1 billion) lacked proper monitoring plans proving the CO2 was actually stored permanently. Recent guidance (2025–2026) includes "safe harbors" easing reporting amid EPA changes, which critics say further weakens checks.
Much of it subsidizes more oil production: A large share of captured CO2 goes to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) — injecting it into old fields to pump out extra petroleum. Taxpayers effectively help oil companies extract and sell more fossil fuels while claiming "climate" credits.
Low transparency: Limited public data on who claims how much, or exact storage outcomes. No strong requirement for net climate benefit in all cases.
quote:
Bottom line on taxpayer funding
Yes, it's a heavy subsidy — far more expensive than initially sold, with real risks of waste, fraud, and indirect fossil fuel support. Deployment is happening (dozens of projects), and some CO2 is stored, but the bang-per-buck for climate is debatable, and the fiscal exposure is huge without reforms like caps, stricter verification, or excluding EOR.
This post was edited on 5/14/26 at 10:21 am
Posted on 5/14/26 at 10:19 am to Trevaylin
quote:
Putting money in that is a sure lose
It will be financially very beneficial to a select few, and pointless (and probably a pain) to the peasants like me. Sure a few jobs will come of it, but most of the unemployed people are in need of a better work ethic rather than the need of those few jobs.
I come to this conclusion by watching politicians push making our state basically a landfill for the country and trying to convince us it's a good thing.
Just my uneducated opinion of course.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News