It would be interesting to know more about these issues.
Being against the Carbon pipeline seems to be a no brainer but the Landowner Bill of Rights seems counter intuitive. But the Devil is always in the details.
Politicians, more often than not, label a bill as exactly what it is not.
They lost to Democrats?
NYT:
The idea of using technology to suck carbon dioxide from the sky has gone from science fiction to big business. Hundreds of start-ups have emerged. The Biden administration in August awarded $1.2 billion to help several companies, including Heirloom, build larger direct air capture plants in Texas and Louisiana. Companies like Airbus and JPMorgan Chase are spending millions to buy carbon removal credits in order to fulfill corporate climate pledges.
Critics point out that many artificial methods of removing carbon dioxide from the air are wildly expensive, in the range of $600 per ton or higher...”
Heirloom won’t disclose its exact costs, but experts estimate that direct air capture currently costs around $600 to $1,000 per ton of carbon dioxide, making it by far the most expensive way to curb emissions, even after new federal tax credits worth up to $180 per ton.’
What a racket!!!
If history is any indication, a bill titled this way would actually strip away any last remnants of landowner rights.
From the article is was pretty clear that the landowner bill of rights was written to allow the pipeline to be built. Your intuition is correct. When you read the bills name you know the actual contents of the bill is the opposite.