One of the problems we, as energy consumers, face is the fact that with the partial exceptions of solar and wind, the thing that creates the energy we need is usually quite a distance from where we want to use the energy. Oil is a great example, in that oil is pumped out of the ground in lots of places with great oil reserves (like Wyoming) but most people live in areas far from Wyoming. Thus, the oil needs to be transported, first to a facility that can convert the crude oil that oozes up from the depths into fuel products we can directly use, like gasoline. And once consumed, the waste products of that combustion must be either allowed to simply escape into the atmosphere or be captured and transported elsewhere.

As with almost everything in the energy business, there are environmental concerns and consequences in the daily business of producing energy, and we often see pitched political battles over a variety of energy questions. Trains, trucks and other methods have been hauling energy-related products like coal and oil for many decades. A recent story in Colorado Politics Out West Round Up reminded that on energy questions, the best solution to a problem like transportation isn’t the best, it’s the “least bad.” And I believe the pipeline noted in the article is, in fact, a “least bad” solution to an important problem.

You might be interested to learn the very successful U.S. pipeline was built all the way back in 1865, by a gentleman named Samuel Van Syckel, who was tired of dealing with Teamsters hauling his oil roughly five miles to a railway station. The roads were bumpy, and the Teamsters could, apparently, be rather grumpy about their work, so Mr. Van Syckel built the very first pipeline, which ran from the colorfully named “Pithole, Pennsylvania” to the Miller Farm railroad station, where the oil would be loaded into tanker cars.

This first pipeline was about two inches in diameter and was made from wrought iron. Steam pumps pushed the crude oil through the pipe and could deliver 2,000 barrels of oil per day. Not surprisingly, the Teamsters were upset and repeatedly vandalized the pipeline, but the future was set: pipelines would become a massively important part of moving oil and oil-related products around.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Today, there are more than 2.5 million miles of pipeline in the U.S. There are roughly 150 working oil pipelines and just more than 200 natural gas pipelines crisscrossing the U.S. Likely you’ve heard about these pipelines, but you may not have heard of another pipeline system in the U.S., the pipelines that carry the waste gas carbon dioxide around. There are more than 5,000 miles of these pipes already working, and they carry CO2 to existing oil fields (to help with extraction) and to other sites where it is injected deep into the Earth for long term storage.

And it is that last use that is of particular interest to readers of Colorado Politics.

As described in a recent Out West report, regulators in North Dakota (or as a friend of mine who lives in Bismarck, calls it, “Baja Manitoba”) are dealing with a lot of blowback due to a 2,500-mile-long CO2 pipeline that would carry the CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in five states back to North Dakota, where it would be injected deep beneath the soils of the Roughrider State.

So, what’s the issue?

Well, oddly, at least to me, is the fact some environmental groups are opposed to the pipeline on the grounds it might leak or have an accident. Others object to the eminent domain actions that will take some lands from quite a few people along the proposed 333 miles in North Dakota.

In November regulators approved the pipeline for North Dakota, and Iowa has also approved construction. There are still approvals needed in South Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska, but given the governor of North Dakota, Doug Burgum, a staunch Republican and Trump’s pick to be the Secretary of the Interior, is behind the measure, I’m betting GOPers in those other states will also approve.

As I mentioned above, the key problem in environmental issues, as with many other concerns, is to find the “least bad” policy, as no one solution will ever make everyone happy. I guess I’m a bit of an outlier in the enviro world in that I think pipelines are often the “least bad” solution to energy issues.

And this particular case, where the pipeline would not be carrying oil to refineries but rather, would be transporting greenhouse gases to a location where they can be safely and essentially permanently secured deep underground, is a pretty good idea. If CO2 pipelines were shut down and future construction cancelled, we would see a need for hundreds of trucks each day to transport the CO2, at a cost (both environmental and monetarily) at several times what a pipeline costs.

I’m pleasantly surprised by North Dakota’s actions, but the steps taken there help illustrate environmental issues are not generally partisan, no matter how much political yelping occurs. And though a pipeline will never be more than a least bad option, least bad is much better than other alternatives.

Will the other states pass the needed regulations and laws to permit the rest of the CO2 pipeline’s construction?

Stay tuned.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.