I write this in response to a recent column by Representative Jessica Domangue (R – Houma) in support of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) that was recently posted right here on The Hayride. With all due respect to Rep. Domangue, her arguments in favor of CCS simply do not hold water.

Rep. Domangue likens CCS to a grocery store that is simply selling their customers the products that they want. That is a very surface level correlation at best and does not survive any sort of objective scrutiny. She uses the argument that America’s LNG customers in Europe want to buy “de-carbonized” LNG, and so we should sell it to them and take their money, just like grocery store owner sells the organic kale that he thinks is silly, but his customers want. Sounds completely logical, right?

Wrong.

I suppose that I am one of those naïve hipsters, because I do on occasion buy organic, non-GMO kale at the grocery store. And when I do so, I expect to pay a premium price for that product. And that is where Rep. Domangue’s analogy completely falls apart. Because the grocery store owner must charge me a price that ensures that he covers his cost and turns a profit. He is not given my tax dollars by the federal government so that he can sell his organic kale to me at the same price as the competing grocery stores are selling their non-organic kale. That is exactly what is happening with CCS. The oil and gas companies are being handed our tax dollars to perform CCS so that they can sell “de-carbonized” LNG at a lower price. This allows them to make a profit doing something that would otherwise never be profitable in an actual free-market, capitalistic system.

The grocery store owner passes the cost for his premium product to his customer. The oil and gas industry passes the cost for their premium product to the American taxpayers. That is simply wrong. You can’t really blame them for taking the free money. But you can blame the government for giving it to them.

Rep. Domangue even goes into the discussion of the 45Q tax credits later in her column, as if no one would be smart enough to pick up on the fact that these subsidies completely undermine her grocery store analogy (maybe it is a fair comparison in New York under Mayor Mamdani, but not in Louisiana). If the oil and gas companies used their own money to perform CCS, many (but not all) of the arguments against it would disappear. But that will never happen, because it only works economically if they get the taxpayer funded subsidies. They clearly cannot make a profit from CCS without those 45Q subsidies.

President Trump has taken a great many actions that have moved this country forward by leaps and bounds in a positive direction. Leaving the 45Q tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill is not one of those actions. It also does not square up with the DOGE efforts from the early days of his presidency. Those tax credits need to go away, and it was very disappointing to see that wind and solar credits were cut, but rather than being eliminated, CCS subsidies were increased in the OBBB. This is not anything resembling capitalism, or free enterprise, and conservative politicians should not support it. One should really ask why so many “conservative” Republicans in the legislature are so committed to supporting (forcing down our throats?) an activity that can only exist if subsidized by our tax dollars.

There is one thing that I seem to agree with Rep. Domangue about when it comes to CCS. It is indeed all about the money. Where we seem to differ is when it comes to the question of whether they should be able to use my money for their “green energy” boondoggle that does not benefit me in the tiniest bit. Let’s put those billions of dollars to use where they will produce something of actual value. Or (and here is a novel idea), just give that money back to the taxpayers who earned it.