This week’s United Nations report on climate change – estimating that the global community has roughly twelve years to cut emissions in half in order to avoid catastrophic warming – was jarring. The twelve-year deadline may seem a short window for the low-carbon revolution. But consider what has changed in the past twelve years, since 2006:
3 billion more people have become connected to the Internet.
Over 4 billion more people have access to a cellular phone.
Polio was declared eradicated from all but two countries.
Global wind and solar energy capacity reached the milestone of a trillion watts installed.
The average cost of solar energy per megawatt-hour in the United States plummeted from more than $400 to only $50.
Closer to home, 2007 was the year Minnesota passed the bipartisan Next Generation Energy Act, which spurred enormous clean energy development in our state. In the past twelve years, we’ve tripled the portion of our electricity generated by renewables – these sources now produce more than one-fifth of our electricity and counting. We’ve also made notable strides in energy efficiency, a field that has outpaced Minnesota’s economy overall in job creation three times over. The upshot is that we’re capable – in Minnesota and around the world – of creating the future we need to handle climate change.
A transition for Minnesotans, by Minnesotans
The healthy changes of the last twelve years could not have happened without the support of Minnesotans who showed up and spoke up. The actions we need for the next twelve will require just as much courage and dedication. We ask all Minnesotans to continue this important work. Contact your lawmakers and make sure to ask candidates for their plans for climate action before the election next month. Find an avenue to make your voice heard on climate change in whatever way suits you.
A brighter future for Minnesota, and the world, is entirely possible. Let’s start building it together.
On Wednesday, the Minnesota Environmental Partnership and eight partnering organizations served the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget (MMB) with a lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s raid on the constitutionally-dedicated Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund in order to pay for infrastructure projects.
This raid is unprecedented. If left unchallenged, it would set a dangerous precedent for more raids on this and other dedicated funds in the future.
In our 20-year history, MEP has never before joined or engaged in litigation to support our mission, and we don’t take to this decision lightly. But this action by the Legislature is an especially troubling case.
It violates our state’s constitution and the will of Minnesota voters, and is fiscally irresponsible. It jeopardizes the viability of the Environmental Trust Fund, and thereby threatens the important and necessary projects it supports to improve Minnesota’s natural resources and public health.
The Environmental Trust Fund is meant as a sustainable tool for improving our environment
Since it was created by voters via constitutional amendment in 1988, the Trust Fund has provided funding for projects to tackle Minnesota’s critical environmental issues. It’s contributed to habitat restoration, research on pollutants that make people sick, and advancements in our clean energy economy. (To learn more, see the full list of ENRTF-funded projects.) The Trust Fund receives its money from the state lottery and investments on that income, and is intended in the law to be a “long-term, consistent, and stable source of funding.” It stays that way by generally paying out cash in fiscally sustainable amounts.
The statute governing the fund, passed in the same legislation as its creation and reflecting the concerns of voters, does not permit it to be used for wastewater treatment or solid waste disposal. These are important and necessary projects. But they’re essential and basic government responsibilities that are traditionally funded with regular bonding.
The Legislature broke precedent and ignored these conditions
During the 2018 session, the Legislature arbitrarily limited itself to passing a set level of general obligation bonds (regular bonds). Instead of using these inexpensive bonds to pay for all wastewater treatment and landfill upgrades, the Legislature made use of a financially irresponsible gimmick. Not only did they decide that the Environmental Trust Fund would be used to make payments for $98 million worth of these types of projects, but they would do so via appropriation bonds – bonds that carry much higher interest rate than general obligation bonds.
The estimated cost increase from using these appropriation bonds instead: $35 million.
Essentially, the Legislature decided that they could avoid making the political choice to modestly raise the level of general obligation bonding to pay for these projects. Instead, they would create a false choice, pitting essential waste and water infrastructure against 20 years of new and promising environmental projects desired by the voters – who have consistently supported the Trust Fund.
And once the laws and values that govern the Trust Fund are successfully ignored, it sets an easily-used precedent for more raids that could leave the voter-created fund drained and non-viable.
A lack of respect for the public will
The Legislative process for passing this raid was seemingly designed to avoid public scrutiny. The raid was added to the omnibus bonding bill late in the day on the last day of the session, at a hearing where no public comment was taken.
Governor Mark Dayton signed the bonding bill, despite his disapproval of the raid, because it was bundled with other important projects. But he urged the next Legislature to fix the raid and protect the Trust fund.
Last month, MEP Executive Director Steve Morse testified to the Legislative-Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), which oversees the fund’s disbursement, to ask them not to proceed with these projects. Their response was to suggest that if MEP and its allies believed the raid to be unconstitutional, we should simply sue the state.
We seek a long-term solution to protect the Trust Fund and upgrade our infrastructure
We’re allied on this lawsuit with these fellow members of Minnesota’s conservation community:
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Friends of the Mississippi River
Izaak Walton League – Minnesota Division
Clean Water Action
Friends of Minnesota Scientific and Natural Areas
And Minnesota Native Plant Society
…because we know that Minnesotans value the long-term health of all our resources. We value our water, our air, our wildlife, and the health of our communities. We value responsible funding for our infrastructure. We value our Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, a study headed by the University of Michigan reported that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) – which works to improve water quality and habitat health around the region – provides a tremendous payoff for Great Lakes communities. The report found that the GLRI, already known to be an environmental success since its inception in 2010, will produce $3.35 in economic activity around the Great Lakes for every $1 invested by 2036. Minnesota cities like Duluth and others along the North Shore are great examples – they’ve seen both direct investment and economic ripple effects from the GLRI that have helped revitalize their economies.
The GLRI’s initial impacts on water cleanup, shoreline restoration, and other projects have created a powerful economic engine. These efforts have created and sustained jobs in scientific research, conservation, engineering, landscaping, and many other fields. The GLRI also provides funding to a variety of agencies and organizations to create opportunities for job training and other workforce development programs.
The restored shorelines, harbors and waterways support another expanding sector – tourism and recreation. The study estimates that the GLRI’s benefits to this sector will amount to $1.62 for every dollar spent through 2036.
A major boost for Duluth
The Duluth-Superior area is an especially positive case. Prior to the restoration efforts, the St. Louis River estuary in the Twin Ports was deeply contaminated, but the infusion of $60 million from the GLRI has made major improvements, making the area a more attractive destination. The study found that since 2008, jobs in the hospitality sector have increased by 4.4% and the city of Duluth’s tax revenue from tourism has doubled. Hotels, restaurants, and breweries are expanding and springing up in the Twin Ports in part because of the much improved water and recreation opportunities. Along Duluth’s once-contaminated harbor, three new hotels have opened in the last four years.
The restoration has also made Great Lakes communities more appealing places to live in. The Twin Ports have seen their populations of young adults increase significantly since the GLRI began, in part due to the parks, amenities, and environmental quality that the GLRI has helped create. Overall, the study estimates that every dollar spent on the program causes residents to gain $1.08 in increased property values as lakeshore communities become more desirable.
GLRI’s success is evident – the trick is protecting and building on it further
The GLRI effort has won broad support from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, especially in districts around the Great Lakes that have enjoyed the prosperity it generates. In its last two proposed budgets, the Trump Administration attempted to slash the program’s funding by 90% or more, but Congress has overwhelmingly moved to reject the cuts and fully funded GLRI with $300 million each year.
Continuing to protect GLRI’s funding is a top priority for organizations and leaders around the region. It’s also critical to restore funding to agencies, like the EPA, that administer the program and ensure the money is invested effectively. And the Great Lakes face growing challenges like plastic pollution and invasive species that demand further action.
This week, MEP’s Great Lakes Program Director Andrew Slade visited Washington, D.C. to meet with lawmakers and staff to ask them to ramp up their efforts to protect the Great Lakes and cities like Duluth. Slade was accompanied by Rosie Alberio and Eben Phillips (all three in picture above), two representatives of the Duluth Stream Corps. With funding support from the GLRI, the Corps hires and trains Duluth residents to work on restoring shorelines, forests, and streams around the city. It’s a powerful example of the many programs that have revitalized the economy and improved the lives of millions of people around the Great Lakes.
These GLRI programs tell a story of how cleaning up land and water and growing the economy aren’t opposing goals – we can and should have both. Restoring and protecting the Great Lakes is a proven job creator and a boon to communities, and our lawmakers should continue investing in this success for years to come.
Yesterday, September 21, the City of Minneapolis partnered with Move Minneapolis to celebrate World Car Free Day, marked by cities around the world as a day to raise awareness of the many sustainable options available to commuters. The event included award contests, free transit pass giveaways, sharing of stories, and outreach to inform commuters of alternatives – cycling, carpooling, public transit, and walking – to one commuter using one car.
The goal of World Car Free Day isn’t merely to keep a few cars off the road for a day, but to help commuters realize that in the long term, a clean commute is much more enjoyable than they might have expected.
Switching from the solo drive carries many benefits
Better for our air – To start with, any reduction in car usage is good for Minnesota’s air and efforts to mitigate climate change. Because of the decline of coal power in Minnesota, our electricity generation no longer makes up the largest share of greenhouse gas pollution – transportation is now our leading sector for those emissions. And vehicles are a powerful contributor of other air pollutants, like particulates and ozone, that cause asthma and other respiratory diseases. The fewer cars traveling on Minnesota’s roads on any given day, the cleaner our air will be.
Better for our planet – Fortunately, there’s enormous potential for Minnesotans to make relatively painless changes in their driving habits. According to the National Household Travel Survey, around 21% – roughly one in five – of all private vehicle trips in the United States are one mile or less in distance. Granted, many of those trips are necessary, but most people can walk a mile at a leisurely pace in roughly 20 minutes. Furthermore, the survey states that trips under 5 miles account for roughly 60% of the nation’s vehicle trips. If even a fraction of these individual car trips were replaced by walking, biking, carpooling, or public transit, we could reduce emissions by millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Better for your neighbor – These environmental benefits are compounded by the benefits to other commuters, especially those who may still need to drive. Removing cars from the road reduces traffic congestion, cutting travel times for drivers and allowing vehicle engines to operate more efficiently, cutting emissions further. Rather than increasing congestion, bicycle lanes, safe sidewalks, and transit routes reduce it if they’re made accessible and safe for the public.
Better for you! – Finally, reducing car trips through clean transportation carries significant personal benefits. A multi-national study carried out in several European cities found that commuting by bike was correlated with improved mental, physical, and social well-being. And the Department of Health and Human Services recommends that adults get at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise each week – an amount easily covered by a few manageable walking or bicycle trips. And compared with the maintenance and fuel costs of a personal vehicle, most other forms of transportation average out to be far cheaper for short trips.
Accessibility is an issue – but it’s improving in many places
Granted, not everyone may be able to walk, bike, or take a train or bus to their destinations, and for many of those who can, lack of accessibility can be a major obstacle. But that’s an argument for supporting better options for clean transportation, not staying stuck in the rut of solo car trips. Many investments already being made in Minnesota are making clean transportation more accessible, and there are more we should continue to support.
Contrary to stereotypes, bicycling isn’t relegated to the Twin Cities metro – it’s growing around the entire state. The Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota – an MEP member organization – recognizes twenty-two Bicycle Friendly Communities in Minnesota, from Grand Forks to Grand Marais and Willmar to Winona. Three colleges in Greater Minnesota – Minnesota State University in Mankato, Concordia College in Moorhead, and Gustavus Adolphus in St. Peter – were recognized as Bicycle Friendly Universities by the League of American Bicyclists in 2018.
Public transit is also growing around the state, with services expanding in in several Greater Minnesota communities. And in addition to bus and rail transport, the Twin Cities’ Metro Transit offers an online carpool matching service.
However, Minnesota’s clean transportation landscape needs improvements. Improving safe biking and walking infrastructure is critical to giving Minnesotans peace of mind when getting around without a car. And further investments in public transit are important to both affordability and expanded service (a CityLab report provides concrete evidence that improving service makes more people want to ride transit.)
Are you a candidate for a car-free commute? Recent columns in the Star Tribune from Jennifer Brooks and Sarah Buntzman Strong share their stories of trying – and actually liking – the act of getting to work without their vehicle.
Not everyone can or will start going car-free on their daily journeys. But to those who are able, we say: why not give it a try?
This week saw a tremendous groundswell in climate advocacy in Minnesota at a moment when the impacts of our changing climate are becoming more and more visible. On Saturday, September 8, People’s Climate Movement – Minnesota and allied organizations hosted the Rise for Climate, Jobs, & Justice Summit in Minneapolis, where more than 600 attendees heard from speakers, discussed climate justice issues, and learned how to make change (see photos and video of the summit here.) The event centered on the ways in which the climate movement intersects with racial justice, labor, civil rights, and youth participation. And Minneapolis wasn’t the only city to participate – people in Minnesota cities including Duluth, Winona, and Willmar held their own events, along with cities around the world.
Then on Tuesday, September 11, a group of Minnesota students and partnering organizations launched the Minnesota Can’t Wait campaign, aimed at demanding that Minnesota leaders take action on climate change. The campaign centers on a petition, submitted by the student leaders, that asks the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to develop a rule to regulate greenhouse gas pollution, and on a public petition to Governor Dayton to take immediate action on the issue. It stresses the urgency – becoming more and more evident – for Minnesota to take action on climate change. (To support the campaign, we encourage visiting their website and using the hashtag #MNCantWait on social media.)
The costs are adding up
The devastating weather events of the last year show why Minnesota, the U.S., and the world can’t afford more delay on climate action. As of this writing, the southeastern coast of the United States is being bombarded by Hurricane Florence, which has already damaged thousands of homes, cut off power for hundreds of thousands of people, and produced unexpectedly powerful flooding. This comes on the heels of a report that found that around three thousand lives were lost in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria, making it among the most lethal disasters in U.S. history. Closer to home, Minnesota and Wisconsin have seen so-called “hundred year” storms strike with increasing regularity, producing floods in June and July that damaged dozens of communities, even as wildfire smoke from Canada triggered air quality alerts across the state.
While it’s true that many factors produce torrential storms, the science is clear: warmer temperatures are making storms wetter and worse. And though the southeastern states have borne the brunt of catastrophic rainfall exacerbated by climate change, Minnesota can expect to see rising costs – these floods are only the beginning. The only state where temperatures are rising faster is Alaska. It’s clear that without immediate action, the safety and way of life of Minnesota’s five and a half million people will continue to be threatened by climate change.
What to do about it
There is no silver bullet to mitigate climate change in Minnesota. But that’s a reason to take stronger action, not weaker. Among the actions we can take:
As stated in the Minnesota Can’t Wait petition, Minnesota can find ways to regulate or put a cost on carbon emissions to ensure an equitable transition from fossil fuels.
We can invest our resources in clean energy sources like wind and solar (and reject new fossil fuel infrastructure) to grow our economy and ensure that it is powered affordably and sustainably.
We can continue to make improvements in energy efficiency, electrification, and public transportation to fight all types of air pollution.
We can spur the growth of crop systems that put living cover on the land for the entire year, removing carbon from the atmosphere while improving our water and soil.
We can invest in resilient infrastructure, including stormwater management that uses native ecosystems to absorb water, to help protect our cities against floods.
With an election less than two months away, our state’s leaders should listen well to Minnesotans’ message: we can’t wait any longer for effective climate action.
On Thursday, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced its cancellation of a Forest Service study and moratorium on mineral exploration in the watershed of the Superior National Forest, raising the possibility that private companies may soon be able to lease minerals in the watershed. The study was set up to research a proposed 20-year ban on mining within a 234,000 acre area of the Superior National Forest, which will now be dropped from consideration by the USDA.
While the USDA did not name any particular company in its announcement, this reversal stands to benefit Twin Metals, which has proposed to construct a copper-nickel sulfide mine near Ely that would lie in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Department of Interior previously restored Twin Metals’ mineral leases, which had been revoked by the Obama Administration, moving the project closer to the realm of possibility.
If allowed to go ahead, the Twin Metals mine would pose an imminent and permanent threat to some of Northeastern Minnesota’s most precious water resources.
The study aimed to assess risks of new mining in NE Minnesota
The Forest Service’s study aimed to determine how sulfide mining – which has never before been done in the region – would impact the water, people, land, and wildlife in the region. The study and mineral moratorium were initiated under the Obama Administration, and was intended to last for at least two years. As late as May 2018, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue assured members of Congress that the study would be completed in full. Given that it instead lasted 15 months and included minimal public comment, it’s clear that this assurance was not kept.
The USDA’s claim that “The analysis did not reveal new scientific information” may be technically correct in the sense that the process was deliberately reduced in scope and capability to avoid the inconvenient facts: sulfide mining has never been conducted in a watershed without severe pollution, and it would devastate some of Minnesota’s most vulnerable waters.
An unprecedented, hazardous new industry
In its announcement, the USDA stated that “The Superior National Forest has been mined for decades and is known as the ‘Iron Range’ due to its numerous iron mines.” This misleadingly suggests that sulfide mining would be nothing new for Northeastern Minnesota. In fact, this type of mining has never happened in Minnesota, but it has happened in such places as Mount Polley in Canada, and the Berkeley Pit in Montana, both of which caused catastrophic water pollution. Along with the proposed PolyMet mine in the St. Louis River watershed, the Twin Metals mine (or any sulfide mine) near the Boundary Waters would threaten some of the most valuable and vulnerable freshwater supplies in the world. An inevitable spill would threaten the health of local residents, the viability of local ecosystems, and the vitality of Minnesota’s economy.
The USDA’s disregard for thorough scientific review and the value of Minnesota’s waters is a betrayal of Minnesotans’ trust. While the Twin Metals mine is far from being greenlit, the 20-year ban would have been a bulwark against sulfide mining pollution toxifying the Rainy River watershed and the Boundary Waters.
Minnesota can’t afford to allow sulfide mining to pollute our water for hundreds of years. The fight over Twin Metals is by no means over, and we urge all concerned Minnesotans to participate, so that the USDA’s error doesn’t turn into an environmental nightmare.
On Wednesday, August 29, more than 100 people gathered in Bemidji and occupied several streets to share a message: the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline project is wrong for Minnesota. The gathering, organized by MEP partners including MN350, Honor the Earth, and the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, peacefully occupied public streets within a few hundred feet of the headwaters of the Mississippi River. The demonstrators called on Governor Mark Dayton and the state of Minnesota to halt the Line 3 permitting process as lawsuits and challenges to the risky project move forward. They decried the Public Utilities Commission’s approval in June of a certificate of need for Line 3 – a decision that faces legal challenges from multiple groups.
While no arrests were made, local police cited more than 25 people during the protest. According to Sierra Club North Star Chapter Executive Director Margaret Levin, the Bemidji gathering represents only the third time that Sierra Club leadership has gathered in protest at risk of arrest. The rarity of this action underscores the tremendous hazard that Line 3 poses to all Minnesotans, and the often misunderstood fact that the Line 3 debate hasn’t ended – not by a long shot.
The risk to Minnesota’s people and water
The new Line 3, billed as a simple replacement project by Enbridge Energy, would greatly increase the volume of tar sands oil crossing Minnesota’s lands and waters from Kittson County to Duluth. That would impact all Minnesotans financially (see our fact sheet on why Line 3 would be a risky, unneeded investment for our state) and via climate change, as tar sands oil is even more emissions-heavy than conventional crude.
Northern Minnesotans, however, would face the brunt of the impacts. Line 3 would traverse a new route through Minnesota’s most vulnerable and pristine waters, at the top of the continental divide. A spill in those waters would be catastrophic in the short and long term – once tar sands oil spills into water, it’s nearly impossible to clean up. That’s one major reason why the pipeline would be especially harmful to indigenous tribes in Minnesota. The Ojibwe maintain treaty rights to harvest wild rice and fish in Northern Minnesota waters, and deeply rely on these water resources culturally and economically.
Line 3’s approval is not yet set in stone
The Public Utilities Commission did not end the Line 3 debate, as federal, state, and local permits are also required for the pipeline to move forward. And the PUC’s process had clear flaws, rejecting vital testimony and ignoring many of the environmental and cultural impacts a new pipeline would inflict. MEP partners including Honor the Earth and Friends of the Headwaters have filed suit to challenge Line 3’s flawed environmental impact statement, which the PUC relied on in making its decision.
Wednesday’s peaceful rally in Bemidji represents the undaunted willingness of Minnesotans to continue standing up for our land, our waters, our health, and the rights of indigenous communities. We thank all those who took action in Bemidji, and we call on state decision-makers to listen to Minnesotans and avoid the consequences of this harmful new pipeline proposal.
On Thursday, August 23, the Newburg Township Board in Fillmore County voted in the presence of more than 200 community members to institute a one-year moratorium to block construction on new large livestock feedlots. The moratorium was considered – and vigorously championed by many in southeastern Minnesota – in response to a proposed feedlot that would house nearly 5,000 hogs and generate millions of gallons of manure each year.
Catalpa, LLC’s proposed feedlot would be situated east of the city of Harmony and above some of Minnesota’s most vulnerable karst areas, where groundwater is especially vulnerable to infiltration by pollutants. Because of the enormous anticipated impact of the feedlot, residents, local officials, and MEP partner organization Land Stewardship Project have called on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to order an in-depth Environmental Impact Statement to determine the dangers posed by this project.
Though the Catalpa feedlot debate is by no means finished, the vote by Newburg Township demonstrates that local government can still be an effective means of protecting residents and resources from long-term health hazards. And it has shone a spotlight on the powerful level of community commitment to a cleaner, safer, more equitable food system in southeast Minnesota.
In many ways, Minnesota is defined in the popular imagination by our boundless opportunities for enjoying the outdoors. Our thousand lakes and the cool, pure air and water of the North Shore attract visitors from around the world. But Minnesota’s water and air are not immune to the dangers of climate change, and the summer’s weather has had very real impacts on these resources and all of us who live among them.
In June and July, Minnesota faced some of the worst flooding in our history. 29 counties were impacted by severe water levels from a series of unusually powerful thunderstorms. Power lines and bridges were damaged, and public park areas were littered with debris and storm water. In a letter to President Trump requesting a federal major disaster declaration, Governor Mark Dayton provided a damage cost estimate for the state of Minnesota of over $22 million. While it’s difficult to trace these monumental floods directly to our warming climate, we know that the storms were exacerbated by a system of hot air and high pressure above the state. And it’s evident that severe weather events like these so-called “100 year storms” are becoming more frequent.
Not long after the state was inundated with rainfall, Minnesota began suffering from another climate-influenced disaster: Canadian wildfires. As of this writing, the MPCA has issued an air quality alert for nearly the entire state of Minnesota during the weekend of August 17 – August 19 due to fine particle pollution released by these wildfires into the atmosphere. These particles are especially dangerous to children, older adults, and people with asthma or heart disease, but even healthy Minnesotans have been urged to avoid strenuous outdoor activities.
Wildfires are not uncommon in the western U.S. and Canada, but it’s become evident that evaporation caused by climate change (which also increases the chance of severe storms) is drying out the landscape, worsening these fires around the world, even in forests above the Arctic Circle. And with increasingly hot spring and summer temperatures in the mix, air quality problems will become more common in our state, threatening harm to all, especially the 400,000 Minnesotans who have asthma.
Climate change is no longer a menace on Minnesota’s horizon – it’s hurting us here and now. We need immediate action to deal with both its causes and its consequences.
What Minnesota can do
As we outlined in our August 4 article, Minnesota’s clean energy economy is growing, but that growth must be accelerated. With electricity becoming less reliant on coal and more on wind and solar, our state’s transportation sector is now our number one source of emissions. We need to make timely, significant investments in clean transportation, including electric vehicles, public transit, and infrastructure that makes it safe and easy for Minnesotans to walk and bike. We must also raise our vehicle emissions standards, not lower them as the Trump Administration intends, to make vehicles more efficient and further protect people with respiratory conditions.
We should increase our investments in perennial and cover crops that pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere all year round. These provide the combined benefits of cutting our net emissions, protecting our water resources, and even reducing erosion on fields hit with heavy rainfall.
We need to ensure that our cities have the resiliency they need to weather changing climate conditions. New stormwater infrastructure, especially “green infrastructure” that allows soil and plants to soak up excess water – is needed by many communities.
Minnesotans can’t afford to wait for these solutions. Our next Governor and Legislature must ensure that climate action is a top priority.
On Tuesday, August 14, Minnesotans in every county and district will cast ballots in what may one of the most significant primary elections in our state’s recent history. Many have already voted early, in person or by mail, and this year’s turnout is expected to be significant even for a high-voting-rate state like Minnesota. This primary will select the major party nominees for a large swath of offices:
Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Both United States Senators
U.S. Representatives in several Congressional districts
Minnesota House Representatives in more than a dozen districts
Minnesota’s next class of leaders will have to decide how to lead on critical environmental issues facing Minnesotans. The drinking water in many parts of our state is increasingly contaminated by nitrate. The health and economic sustainability in Northern Minnesota is put in jeopardy by sulfide mining and the Line 3 oil pipeline. Historic flooding and soot from wildfires – both exacerbated by climate change – damage and threaten communities across the region.
But our elected officials will also have tremendous opportunities to grow our economy and provide for a healthy future for all. Minnesota’s vast potential for clean energy has created thousands of jobs, and can create tens of thousands more with the right policies and investments, providing tax revenue for communities and cleaning our air of illness-causing pollutants. Research into perennial and cover crops that filter water and absorb atmospheric carbon can provide farmers with new revenue while keeping our groundwater safe to drink. And continued efforts to protect and restore Lake Superior can provide economic investments while keeping the Lake Superior watershed clean, healthy, and secure.
Voters tend to rank health, the economy, and safety among their top issues at the ballot box. But these issues are deeply connected, and they certainly aren’t separated from the environment in which we live – and which needs stewardship and protection from our political leaders. To make progress on these issues, candidates need to understand that they’re a priority for Minnesotans. Here’s what how you can make sure that happens:
1. Vote in the primary and in the general election on November 8th. There are no unimportant statewide elections, but with so many open contests, no eligible Minnesotan can afford not to participate. However, you don’t need to vote in person on election day – you can also vote early in person or by absentee ballot (though all absentee ballots must be received by election day.) If you’re not registered, it’s easy to do so at your polling place or online.
2.Tell the candidates that keeping Minnesota clean is a priority for you. Most political campaigns can be reached by email, phone, mail, or social media and welcome feedback from voters. Election season is the best time to make sure that our present and future elected officials are listening.
Minnesota’s people, environment, and democracy need to be kept healthy. It all starts with your vote!