MN2020: Views

Tuesday Talk: What priorities did lawmakers neglect?

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:00:08 +0000

By Joe Sheeran, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Joe Sheeran, Communications Director

Conservatives wasted the first three months of 2012’s legislative session working on divisive social and anti-workers issues – Voter ID, Right to Work, Shoot-first and LIFO. Their key piece of legislation—the tax bill—was a corporate giveaway, providing little support to average Minnesota homeowners. As the clock was running out, conservatives scrambled to craft stadium and bonding legislation, which wouldn’t have passed without such strong labor support.

Without these key accomplishments, was it even worth turning on the lights at the Capitol this year? What policy priorities has Minnesota’s 87th Legislative Session left undone?

VIDEO: In the Heart of the Beast

Thu, 10 May 2012 11:00:35 +0000

By Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

The 38th annual May Day Parade and Festival put on by the In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask Theater is a Minnesota staple and nationally recognized a model for community arts initiatives and educational outreach.

In addition to visually stunning theater, the event brings attention to issues of food justice, water use, transportation, and energy policy solutions

This year, Heart of the Beast is teaming up with Blooming Towns to foster discussion and action beyond the parade and festival.

note: incliment weather has rescheduled the event for May 13th, 2012 at 1pm in Minneapolis

Tuesday Talk: How do we move from “or” to “and”?

Tue, 08 May 2012 11:00:46 +0000

By Joe Sheeran, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Joe Sheeran, Communications Director

There’s a difference between prudent financial decisions and being so cash-strapped every fiscal question revolves around an either/or scenario. Before conservative “no-new-taxes” policy, Minnesota could afford both sound education investment and robust transportation funding; health care for the most vulnerable and aid to local governments. Now policymakers have to decide on either shifting more education funding or cutting health care deeper.

With a year left to balance another state budget, how do we begin moving past “either/or” and back to “and”?

Supporting Minnesota Solar

Wed, 02 May 2012 11:00:25 +0000

By Zach Tamble, University of St. Thomas

Today, Minnesota 2020 concludes its continuing series of columns from Macalester students focusing on environmental policy issues. We'd like to extend a special thanks to Katie Pratt, Ph.D., her students and Macalester College's Environmental Studies Department.

Despite our harsh winters, Minnesota has a solar energy potential that's comparable to southern states. Even Germany, the world-wide leader in solar energy production has less sunlight per year than Minnesota. Why then do we choose to import billions of dollars of dirty energy?

From August 2010 to August 2011, the US solar industry experienced ten times more job growth than the national average. Minnesota is better off with solar energy for many reasons. First, it keeps our air and water clean. When energy is created from solar panels, there is no waste from coal or natural gas, and there are essentially no emissions.

Second, it lessens imported energy dependence. Third, when purchasing solar panels from the state's solar manufacturers the money stays right here in Minnesota. Keeping money in our state allows for greater job growth, increased spending, and economic security. In fact, Minnesota and Xcel Energy have set up a rebate program that incentivizes buying Minnesota-made solar panels.

Many utilities are moving to Time-Of-Use billing, which prices energy based on peak demand. On-Peak is generally from noon to 6:00 PM, and this just happens to be when solar panels generate the most electricity.

Despite its long-tem savings, financing solar projects pose a barrier to installed capacity. Although 2010 was a record year for numbers of installations, Minnesota could be even better off with a third party financing tool. The closest we have come is something called the PACE program. PACE basically means that your local government will loan you money to install solar panels on your property and you pay back the loan with the savings from your utility bill. The PACE program is not very popular though. The city must administer the program itself and then the program is generally funded with municipal bonds. Some consider the whole program unwieldy and people may not want to go through all the trouble.

Minnesota needs a new third party financing system where companies are allowed to install their systems on customers’ roofs, and the customers then sell the electricity back to the grid. This would allow more installations each year and would keep solar companies in Minnesota. We want to keep these industries here in Minnesota because they are helpful in making us energy independent, creating thousands of jobs, and keeping our money in our state. Help Minnesota continue to thrive and take advantage of the great solar energy resource that we have. The sun is just shining and waiting for us to capture its valuable rays.

Tuesday Talk: Where do you stand on stadium financing?

Tue, 01 May 2012 11:00:52 +0000

By Joe Sheeran, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Joe Sheeran, Communications Director

Strong communities help build public sports venues as part of their long-term planning. Instead, conservative fiscal policy has forced us to hastily plug deficit after deficit, scraping just enough funding to meet immediate education, public health, and transportation needs. Now that the time has come to build a new stadium, Minnesota is left to rely on a hodgepodge of shaky funding plans.

From a policy perspective, where do you stand on the stadium financing issue?

Re-Appropriating Reuse

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:00:04 +0000

By Joel Mandella, Macalester College

Over the past several weeks Minnesota 2020 has been running a series of columns focusing on environmental policy issues. This is part of our continuing collaboration with Macalester College's Environmental Studies Department and its students.

What if there was a system to solve many of the environmental challenges that face the 21st century without sacrificing a healthy environment or economic goals? What if we could use fewer resources, lessen strains on ecosystems, and improve the economy through both personal and governmental channels?

This ideal system already exists in America today, though it remains largely invisible to most people in their daily lives. But with more recognition and support, recycling proposals could become more widespread and effective in achieving collective economic and environmental goals.

The current waste management system in Minnesota is still largely rooted in unsustainable and inefficient waste disposal. In Minnesota, the average individual in the Twin City area produces seven pounds of waste every day. All together, that is enough waste to fill the Metrodome 11 times, every year.

More than half the total waste of Minnesota is sent to processing plants or landfills located both in- and out-of-state. Even though these processing plants are useful in reclaiming some of the energy through burning acceptable materials (24.5 percent of waste) and composting (less than 1 percent of waste), they also generate hazardous byproducts that then must be carefully disposed of. Moreover, the containment layers of these landfills eventually break down and leak toxic chemicals into surrounding ground and surface water.

Though these disposal processes create some jobs, the EPA estimates that recycling creates at least five times as many jobs as landfills. While the state of California spends 25 million dollars every year sending plastic bags to landfills and 8 million a year to remove littered bags from streets, Ireland in 2002 passed a 15-cent tax on plastic bags and consumption of plastic bags dropped 90 percent. The program also raised millions of euro in revenue. If enacted in Minnesota, this system would not only decrease unnecessary government spending and reduce pollution, but also increase state income.

Though efforts towards sustainability have proved helpful, there is still much room for improvement in recycling processes. Currently, the major recycling companies Eureka Recycling and Veolia Environmental Services manage waste in the Twin Cities. In 2001, Eureka Recycling assessed their process of curbside collection of separated paper materials and containers two times per week.

The study found that a weekly combined material pick-up was more efficient, along with an added bottle collection service. This led to overall improved costs, greater convenience, and diverted 74 percent of household discards from landfills to reuse. Every 5 plastic bottles saved by this curbside pick-up provides enough fiber for an extra-large T-shirt, one square foot of carpeting, or the necessary fiber for a ski jacket.

The study also found that curbside composting would be economical and ecological, but this has been slow in enactment. Eleven years later, Eureka has created a few organic composting programs in Minnesota, but many areas of the state are completely without such services or are still in the initial testing phases.

There are many ways on both personal and political levels to make a difference concerning the importance and availability of recycling. Most importantly, individuals should be sure to recycle their wastes and consume less. By doing this collectively, we can ensure that recycling programs continue to be economically possible, and know that we are participating in a simple act that makes a large environmental impact as a whole.

Those who wish to get more involved can put political pressure on governments and interest groups to pass recycling initiatives, or write to local recycling companies and state representatives to request expanded composting services in their neighborhoods. There are still many products and materials that are not currently recycled. Some of these materials are hazardous or impossible to reuse, but other potential materials are not recycled simply because an area has no existing infrastructure to reprocess them. By demanding expanded processing for recyclables, individuals can show support for a recyclable and change the recycling industry.

Recycling is not a panacea for global environmental and social problems facing the 21st century, but it is an amazing opportunity to change the current unsustainable society into a more healthy, beautiful, and wise culture and environment of reuse.

PTC and Minnesota Clean Energy Markets

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:00:28 +0000

By Erin Daly, Macalester College

In December 2012 the Production Tax Credit (PTC) will expire, crippling clean energy markets in Minnesota and throughout the U.S. Currently this tax credit supports markets in solar, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, wind, and a host of other alternative energy sources. The PTC makes it possible for clean energy production to be a viable, affordable alternative to coal and oil dependency.

Under its reign, American wind manufacturing grew twelve-fold in the last six years. Not to mention, PTC has helped fund thousands of jobs in clean energy construction. This has included both the Buffalo Ridge and Fenton wind farms, which have propelled Minnesota to among the top five wind-producing states.

In mid-February a bill supporting the renewal of the PTC failed to make the ballot in Congress, and the wind industry is already starting to suffer from reluctant investors. Without the PTC, we could face a loss of $16 billion dollars of private investment and up to 37,000 jobs in the wind industry alone. I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but our economy can’t really take that kind of a blow right now (pun intended).

Speaking of the American economy, let’s take a little pride in something we’ve done quite successfully lately, shall we? Domestic wind energy production in 2011 increased over 30 percent from 2010 levels, resulting in 6,800 new Megawatts of renewable, homegrown power. That’s enough to support 1.6 million homes. Additionally, as the market currently stands, 60 percent of wind turbine materials are made in the United States. Combine that with the 100 percent American wind turning the blades and we’ve got ourselves 11 million homes that do not aggravate our dependence on foreign energy sources.

Better still, the environmental impact of wind turbines is felt far outside the bounds of our economy; on the ground and in the air all across our nation. In the Midwest especially, wind energy is playing a significant role in national pollution reduction efforts.

For one example, let us examine coal. Coal power plants responsible for heating our homes have far-reaching effects that we don’t notice under the “relief” of harsh Minnesota winters. Yet the greenhouse gasses we’re spouting far above our 10,000 lakes are coming down in the form of acid rain all over the eastern reaches of our nation; including my childhood home in central New York.

The Adirondack Mountains are the New York equivalent of the boundary waters; with topography. Yet as Midwest industry fuels itself by burning non-renewables such as coal, many east coasters are seeing their beloved natural get-away deteriorating. The Adirondacks have fallen victim to increasing lake acidification, to the point where fish can no longer survive. In healthy natural systems, small amounts of acid rain can be neutralized by limestone and other defusing elements. Yet these elements cannot replace themselves at a rate sufficient to keep the effects of acidification at bay.

So before you know it, our wilderness retreats to the Adirondacks are suddenly devoid of entire aquatic ecosystems. What was once a source of pride and subsistence for locals with strong ties to the land, is now a barren chain of lakes; due to pollution originating a thousand miles away.

Through this disparity between the benefits and effects of fossil fuel consumption, one can see why Midwesterners should be choosing responsible energy sources. With these considerations in mind, wind power looks like just the thing to reduce our negative impact; especially since it is such an attainable solution to our current pollution. Wind power over the last four years has accounted for 35 percent of all new energy generation in the U.S ; that’s second only to natural gas.

Yet while natural gas development through hydraulic fracturing has been shrouded in controversy over dangers to public health, wind power has no such concerns for human health. Some may claim that wind turbines are unsightly and ruin natural landscapes. Others may find the hum of turning blades to be disruptive. But let us consider the alternative: Being poisoned by unknown chemicals in our water supply that the fracking industry refuses to publicize; or using millions of gallons of water in an extraction technique that leaves us with millions of gallons of toxic wastewater. Call me a martyr, but personally I would be willing to sacrifice a featureless horizon for energy that doesn’t threaten the well-being of our fellow countrymen and women.

And besides, who says wind farms have to be a blemish on the landscape? There are two ways that Minnesotans can look at wind turbines: One way, as unsightly monstrosities that tower over the plains; or the alternative, as visual reminders of our society’s commitment to sustainability, which provide a clean, safe source of energy. You choose, Minnesota.

Luckily for us, Governor Mark Dayton already has. After campaigning on clean energy promises in 2010, he is making the effort to stay consistent with those vows. Less than two weeks after the American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act was proposed, Dayton gave it his full support; as he should, since almost 10 percent of Minnesota’s electricity generation comes from the wind. Our governor was one of twenty three members of the Governor’s Wind Energy Coalition to sign a letter to the heads of Congress asking for extended support of the PTC; thereby ensuring four more years of a flourishing American clean energy market.

Yet more is needed. Our representatives in the House and the Senate have heard from Mark Dayton, but now they need to hear from us. At a time when politicians are slitting throats over party lines, there is no better moment to unite behind a bipartisan bill for clean energy. We can show that, despite our political battles in Washington, Americans are still capable of using democracy to move our nation forward. Voice your opinion of the Production Tax Credit as it fuels our country’s clean energy infrastructure.

Tuesday Talk: Does MN have a clean energy agenda?

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:00:10 +0000

By Katie Sanders, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Katie Sanders, Interim Communications Director

Fresh off of Earth Day and MN2020’s latest report, “Sensible Incentives,” consider sustainability or the lack of sustainability. When appliances wear out, we tend to replace them with the most affordable option—which isn’t necessarily the most energy efficient one. Before you know it, another 12 or more years and the cost of a missed opportunity pass by. Now, apply that to very large scale energy systems.

What are common sense steps we should be taking to improve Minnesota’s clean energy agenda? Does Minnesota have a clean energy agenda?

Rethinking the Farm Bill: Subsidies and Family Farms

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:00:03 +0000

By Wouter Hammink, Macalester College

Over the past several weeks Minnesota 2020 has been running a series of columns focusing on environmental policy issues. This is part of our continuing collaboration with Macalester College's Environmental Studies Department and its students.

Imagine standing at the gas pump. Which fuel do you choose? The cheaper options contain ethanol. Without thinking twice, you choose an ethanol blend; you might even see it as the environmentally mindful option. Now imagine yourself standing in the dairy aisle at your local grocery store. The cost of a gallon of milk has never been so high. Though seemingly unrelated, the decisions you make at the pump directly affect the prices printed on your receipt at the grocery store. The influence of government-supported subsidies has altered the agricultural market in favor of risky industries and factory farms. This needs to be changed.

Growing up on a dairy farm, the impact of agricultural subsidies has always been a part of my life, whether I knew it or not. Ethanol subsidization was merely an afterthought when I a child. However, since getting my driver’s license at fourteen, I began making the conscious decision to keep ethanol out of my gas tank.

The increasing presence of ethanol at the pump has drastically increased the demand and cost of corn. When the cost of feeding cows, pigs, and other animals increases; the impact is offset to the producers and consumers of not only beef and pork, but also meat by-products such as eggs, milk, and cheese.

The ethanol industry was created and developed through a system of subsidies encouraging increased corn production. Though ethanol production increased because of the government subsidies, the biofuel has never been proven to be any better for the environment in the long term than petroleum. In fact, compared to unblended gasoline, corn ethanol has been shown to have no positive benefits to the environment. Regardless, ethanol clearly has major impacts on the price of a bushel of corn, as the ethanol industry in the United States requires more corn than the food industry. The prevalence of ethanol (both by market forces and by subsidies) can directly attributed to about half of the increase in corn prices in 2009.

Views of ethanol are evolving, however. The ethanol industry is no longer subsidy-dependent and the belief that corn ethanol is an environmentally friendly fuel is diminishing. Due to ethanol’s stability in the market and changing public opinion, Congress opted not to extend the subsidies given to corn ethanol producers in 2011. This is great news for Minnesota’s farmers and opens the door for a radically different Farm Bill in 2012.

The success of my family’s farm, as well as Minnesota’s family farms, is hurt by government subsidies that favor corporate factory farms. Even in the face of increased competition from factory farms, international producers, and non-food agricultural production, Minnesota’s family farms are depicted as wealthy subsidy earners. This increased competition from large agribusinesses hurts Minnesota’s family farms more than it helps for two reasons: First, subsidies are more likely to help corporate or factory farms. Second, subsidies’ benefits are not reflected in grocery costs or even at the gas pump. Because of this, farm subsidies actually accomplish the opposite of what they intend.

Farm subsidies are intended to help both the consumer and farmer. Instead, America’s current agricultural subsidy system gives unfair advantages to commercial farms and agribusinesses and costs taxpayers over12 billion dollars annually. Minnesota’s family farmers and concerned consumers require a new Farm Bill that eliminates the unfair subsidies costing both the farmer and the taxpayer.

The expiration of ethanol subsidies marks an opportunity for a larger subsidy reformation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, more commonly known as the Farm Bill, expires in September, 2012. Congress has the chance to drastically alter the American agricultural system. The 2012 Farm Bill should reconsider its corn and feed subsidies, as well as eliminate the current preference for commercial factory farming. Minnesota’s farmers would benefit from a fairer and less regulated agricultural market. Consumers, meaning Minnesota’s taxpayers, would save billions not only in taxes, but also in grocery receipts.

Tuesday Talk: Where do we go from pink slime?

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:00:04 +0000

By Rachel Weeks, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Rachel Weeks, Communications Specialist

Farmers markets, CSAs, and programs like Farm-to-School have grown in popularity in Minnesota—fighting food deserts and increasing nutritious options, while national concerns about food regulation and products such as “pink slime” have sparked debates about how we source and process our food. Safety and the ‘ick’ factor are undeniable forces. As a part of the nation’s bread basket, Minnesota’s economy is closely tied to the food industry.

What policies will move us toward a healthier Minnesota and a sustainable food system?

Successful Enough to Hunt? Minnesota’s Gray Wolves

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:00:07 +0000

By Lisle Bertsche, Macalester College

Over the next several weeks Minnesota 2020 will run a series of columns focusing on environmental policy issues. This is part of our continuing collaboration with Macalester College's Environmental Studies Department and its students.

Growing up in the city, the sounds of buses, traffic, and the occasional car alarm accompanied me to sleep each night. Yet I heard stories from my grandpa about life in western Kansas and how he would go to sleep listening to coyotes howling in the night. His stories always made me long for a world that was more in touch with nature, more wild.

Predators like coyotes and wolves seemed mythical to me—so far from my daily life that I considered them to be part of another world, part of the past. To many people, they are just that, having largely disappeared in the United States. However, in both Minnesota and other upper Midwestern states, the gray wolf has come back.

Canis Lupus, the gray wolf, is a very territorial and incredibly social animal, traveling and hunting in packs with complex hierarchies. They feed on deer, moose, beavers, and other small animals. As top predators, who hunt but have no natural predators of their own, wolves are also vitally important to the ecosystem of northern Minnesota, creating stability in population dynamics with competing groups of prey.

The wolves are not just important ecologically, but also culturally. Wolves are important to the heritage of our state and our peoples. When humans first came into contact with gray wolves, they threatened wolf hunting grounds by competing for prey and encroaching on wolf territory. Seen as a threat to both livestock and to people, wolves were hunted. As a result, most wolf populations were severely threatened by the early 1900s, becoming largely extinct in most of the United States. Today, they exist in Yellowstone National Park and the upper Midwest.

A case in point: The Isle Royale National Park population on Lake Superior demonstrates the need for ongoing concern. With a mere nine wolves left in the park, only one of which is a female, the chances for extinction on the island are high. Although hunting and trapping are not allowed in the national park, the wolf population has still diminished significantly, dropping since 2009 from a long-term average population of around 24. This drop has been attributed to a shortage of females, breakdown of packs, and declining prey populations due to disease and starvation. The fragility of this population and the speed at which it has declined is alarming. One lesson that can be learned from this is that we must continue to exercise care in our decision-making about control of the gray wolves.

Following over three decades of careful population management, the Minnesota wolf population rebounded to 2,900 individuals, the largest of the lower 48 states. This success resulted in the removal of gray wolves from the federal Endangered Species list in January of 2012. But there are differences of opinion on this decision. We must carefully consider which interests have the biggest say in this debate.

Minnesota wolf population management is now in the hands of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The DNR decided to open a wolf-hunting season directly after the delisting, which is cause for concern both because of potential harm to the wolf population and because of the lack of public input in the delisting process.

The DNR will allow 400 wolves to be hunted per season, and believe that the population could sustain much heavier losses without threatening its viability. There is concern, however, that the best interests of the wolf population are being undermined by competing interests. Hunting brings in significant amounts of revenue for the DNR, and the permits sold to hunt wolves earn the DNR an estimated $400,000 each year.

Originally, legislation called for a five-year period of monitoring the wolf population before opening up a hunting period. That this proposal was overruled is cause for concern for many environmentalists and activist groups on several fronts. The first and most obvious concern is for the wolves themselves. While it is believed that the population could rebound from more than 400 hunted each season, it is unclear what effects the increased interactions with humans could have now that federal protections have been lifted.

Also problematic is the DNR’s disregard for the public input processes surrounding ecosystem management, despite the fact that Minnesota’s natural resources are something that we all share and value. This about-face from federal protection to hunting demonstrates a recreational attitude toward nature that does not prioritize the well-being of Minnesota’s wildlife.

The gray wolf is a powerful cultural symbol for Minnesota’s dedication to nature and to its wild areas, and we must continue to protect it.

Not Just Dodging a Draft: Sustainable Building 2030

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:00:01 +0000

By Karen Weldon, Macalester Colelge

Visiting my grandparents’ Victorian farmhouse each winter, I remember wanting to play with the bear-faced draft dodgers that smiled up at me from the bottoms of doorways. “If you move them, the cold air will come inside,” my parents frequently warned. At the time I thought draft dodgers should be toys. Upon reflection, I now realize that they illustrate the need for more energy efficient homes.

While drafty homes were not as problematic during the recent mild winter, a change in projected carbon emissions suggests we should pay attention to household energy usage.

Seven years ago, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected that energy use from buildings would increase 44 percent between 2005 and 2030. In February 2012 EIA lowered the projection to 14 percent. While some variables were factored into the study, recent growth in green buildings is likely also a cause. Since the federal government and other organizations have implemented sustainable building policies and codes, it makes sense that energy use may be decreasing due to increases in green building.

Environmentally speaking, this is good news. According to sustainable buildings promoter Architecture 2030, the building sector uses almost half all the energy consumed in the U.S., emitting 46.7 percent of carbon dioxide from manmade sources. This is more energy than both transportation and industry—which account for 33.4 and 19.9 percent of CO2 emissions, respectively— making the building sector the largest contributor to climate change in the country.

With a 2008 policy that calls for carbon neutrality by 2030, Minnesota is a leader of green building legislation. Minnesota Sustainable Building 2030 (SB 2030) mandates that buildings must meet specific energy efficiency standards in order to receive public funding. Based on the Architecture 2030 challenge for carbon neutrality, the purpose of the legislation is to completely wean buildings from the use of carbon producing fuel.

For this purpose, the statute sets five-year benchmarks for energy efficiency. The first benchmark required that buildings reduce carbon emissions by 60 percent in 2010 from the typical energy use of buildings in 2003. Further benchmarks mandate an additional 10 percent decrease. So far, the state is doing a good job of meeting these goals. The model buildings for the program are near the 2010 goal s.

However, 10 case studies of buildings built before the statue was instituted show SB 2030 has its limitations. While the statute suggests that average energy use will be reduced by 60 percent from the national averages of 2003, meeting the 2010 benchmark only reduced energy usage in Minnesota by 5 percent from 2009 levels.

More importantly, the legislation focuses only on commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings. The statute simply omits residential buildings. Without applying the SB 2030 to residential buildings, the legislation loses a major portion the housing industry. If Minnesota truly wants to be a leader in green building and help reduce energy use as the EIA predicts, leaders should incorporate residential buildings into SB 2030.

The atmosphere is right for stronger legislation regarding green buildings in residential areas:

Educational tools available through SB 2030 will train architects how build sustainable homes. The increase in green building has lead to lower costs for energy efficient construction supplies. Estimates suggest that green buildings cost only one- to two- percent more than standard buildings. Many consumers want homes that use less energy. A recent article in “Finance in Commerce” describes how apartment dwellers in Minneapolis prefer energy efficient homes.

• The state does offer some incentives for green energy renovations and construction for residential homes. But, by making mandates for new homes live up to the benchmarks of SB 2030, the state can guarantee lasting change.

Until that time, homeowners can make green renovations using the tips provided by organizations including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and ask policymakers to consider expanding SB2030 to residential buildings. If such legislation becomes a reality, perhaps draft dodgers will no longer be necessary and, just as I wished when I was child, they can be used as stuffed animals.

Lack of Eagle Permit Throws Caution to the Winds

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:00:30 +0000

By Marlys Mandaville, Macalester College

Minnesota utilities face regulations requiring 25 percent of energy from sustainable resources by 2025 (Goodhue Wind). A project proposed by National Wind may help. In Goodhue County, located in Southern Minnesota, a $179 million dollar project would result in the construction of a 78 MW wind farm made up of 48 wind turbines. The proposed project has received backlash from some environmentalists. Aside from opposition created by the cost, many environmentalists also oppose the project because the building site covers 12,000 acres of land frequented by eagles and bats. Simply saying “no” to the wind farm, as many environmentalists are doing, will not help the state move toward this goal. The wind project should go forward while simultaneous measures are taken to protect eagle populations.

In the past it might have been understandable to not build wind farms in eagle habitat. But now, given that bald eagle populations have risen dramatically, the species was taken off the Endangered Species List in 2007, it is difficult to find sites for wind farms that do not have the potential to harm bald eagles. It is no longer practical or feasible to withhold all wind-farm-building plans due to eagle activity. Rather, given the current growth rate of eagle populations, existing regulations should be implemented to protect these creatures because wind turbine projects will likely affect more and more of them.

It is true that at the Goodhue County site, two rare Golden Eagles have also been spotted, but this is not reason enough to bring the project to a halt. Less than one percent of human-related eagle deaths nation-wide can be attributed to the wind energy industry.

However, in order for National Wind’s Goodhue County wind project to receive a permit to begin construction, it is important that the eagles not be overlooked.

In Oregon, West Butte Wind Power LLC plans to build a new wind farm similar in size to that of Goodhue County’s proposed project. Wind Power is applying for a special permit created by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009. The permit, referred to as an incidental ‘take’ permit, allows for bald and golden eagles to be killed, or ‘taken,’ where they are otherwise protected under the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act of 1940. Though this permit may at first appear ominous, it would ultimately prove beneficial to the eagles, as the permit forces any applicant to write a detailed plan of how, given their legal allowance to ‘take’ the eagles, they also plan to conserve the species.

National Wind, the company sponsoring the Goodhue County project, also applied for the permit. (Marcotty). If approved, the permit supports not only the eagles, but also the economic value of National Wind. Without the permit, if the wind turbines harm either eagles or their nests, the company would be subject to federal prosecution—and a potentially costly legal battle.

Though the incidental take permit does not account for potential harm to bats which are also known to frequent the turbine construction area; eagles, at least, would be legally protected. By applying for the permit, Goodhue Wind has promised to take action to conserve both Bald and Golden species of eagle.

Goodhue Wind should obtain the ‘incidental take’ permit as the most feasible compromise between environmentalists on opposing sides of the project. The permit would allow the project to take place while recognizing the presence of local wildlife, and help push Minnesota forward toward renewable energy goals.

Currently, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission faces an appeal of their earlier decision to issue a permit for the project. On February 23rd, Goodhue Wind went before the Public Utilities Commission, where, likely in response to concern expressed by many state wildlife officials and advocating environmentalists, the plan was voted down 2-1. The proposal is now required to revise the wildlife protection plan, and the best possible conservation plan for the eagles should be achieved. I am confident that if Goodhue Wind has a strong wildlife protection plan backing the eagle take permit, it will win the appeal.

Ultimately, the 'incidental take' permit should be issued. Without it, the project might proceed less favorably to the continued the growth of the eagle population. I believe the wind energy created will outweigh costs and likely disturbance of some wildlife in the area. Minnesota must work to increase the amount of energy it obtains from renewable sources—as Minnesota moves forward with renewable energy, please support our energy goals and support wind energy.

Tuesday Talk: What’s our natural resources legacy?

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:00:58 +0000

By Katie Sanders, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Katie Sanders, Interim Communications Director

Conservative policymakers have significantly changed many of the conservation laws in Minnesota. It seems to be easier to hunt wolf than to slow the Asian carp’s invasion. These laws will change hunting, fishing, boating and hiking, key recreational activities. The Minnesota economy relies heavily on our environment for tourism.

Do you think the laws will aid or discourage economic growth? What will be our natural resources legacy?

Oh Carp, An Alien Invasion

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:00:31 +0000

By Lisa Hu, Macalester College

I always thought the next ‘invasive species’ would appear in flying saucers or drag their undead feet around looking for brains.

Turns out, the biggest invasive threat to Minnesota today is already here. And odds are, you already know about it. As an outdoorsy bunch deriving immense pride from the wilderness, water, and nature of this Land of 10,000 Lakes, most Minnesotans likely have heard of the Asian carp issue. The carp are definitely here, and there are many varieties. The largest and most unpopular is the Asian carp, but the common carp is “probably the number one water quality problem in Minnesota,” states Professor Peter Sorenson of the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior at the University of Minnesota. Sorenson is also the support for the proposed the Invasive Species Center at the University.

[According to Sorenson,] Carp are problematic for a few reasons: As bottom-feeders, they cloud water; they consume nearly half their body weight daily (Weekend America); and they reproduce rapidly. “In many lakes, up to three-quarters of the fish biomass is carp,” Sorenson continued. Carp could potentially drive native species to extinction. “If they get into the Great Lakes, there is concern they won't leave any food for game fish like bass and walleye,” said Steve Hirsch, director of the Ecological Resources Management Team at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Most scientists, policymakers, and citizens alike agree that the spread of Asian carp in particular must be curbed. Yet the specific methods are varied and piecemeal. The Land of 10,000 Lakes can hardly abandon its investment in the $7 billion fishing industry because of an ugly fish species. No, we must maintain and protect our clout in this vital economic sector.

So what are our options?

While the US Federal Government did pass the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to help address carp, it is impossible to completely eradicate the carp populations. Also, as a relatively new problem, we lack tested technology or established programs to guide our treatment of the invasive species.

One solution to the carp issue is to change the way we think: Basically, we think carp are gross and ugly. However, more than 500,000 Minnesotans are on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly the food stamp program). The most logical solution is, regardless of how we feel about carp, that it remains a fish and a valuable storehouse of amino acids, proteins, and omega 3s. It also happens to be a food staple to Eastern Europeans and Southeast Asians, many of whom live in Minnesota. Therefore, Minnesota should take Illinois’ lead and combat the “negative image of carp as ugly, cheap, lousy-tasting fish” through various campaigns. With millions of pounds of carp available, we could help feed the hungry.

An additional proposed solution to prevent the spread of Asian carp up the Mississippi River could be to alter the relative heights of water flowing in and out of the Coon Rapids Dam. It has theoretical advantage, but may not be cost-effective. The dam is not a guaranteed measure to prevent carp from jumping further upstream. However, the joint collaboration between the Department of Natural Resources and Three Rivers Park district powers could slow the entire process.

In the past two years, over $100 million from the federal government has gone to fight carp. “Some funding for the Asian carp program has come from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative requested $300 million for the program in 2013 on top of $1 billion appropriated since 2008”. There is also a $3 billion proposal to separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds.

An additional method of impeding the fish lies in constructing noisy bubble traps. Research shows that noise constraints would affect the carp specifically, given their heightened senses of hearing over other species of fish.

In the end, Minnesota tax payers are tossing a lot of money around trying to get rid of a reliable food supply while almost half a million people go hungry in the state. That’s beyond ridiculous. Rather than spending millions of dollars trying to control or dispose of these fish, we should catch them along with the other fish and eat them with the other fish. Extra fish, hungry people—make the fish desirable and feed the hungry. Fish is fish, as my father used to say, right? I am a pescetarian and I share that view.

Photo credit: UFWS

Keep the “Great Northwoods” Great

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:00:44 +0000

By Britta Dornfeld, Macalester College

I have fond childhood memories of canoe trips taken with my family in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in northeastern Minnesota. I loved the deep blue lakes, breathtaking scenery, and sounds of nature that surrounded me. I am not the only person who enjoys the great North woods. Tourism in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, or the BWCA, brings in $700 million a year. Unfortunately for nature lovers such as myself, this pristine wilderness is threatened by sulfide mining.

In nature, metals such as copper and nickel combine with sulfur to form metal sulfides. Sulfide mining is the procedure of first extracting these sulfides from the ground; and then, separating the metals from the sulfur through various chemical and mechanical processes. In Minnesota, the main concentration of sulfide ores is in the northeastern tip. These sulfide deposits contain metals such as copper and nickel, which are important to many national industries, such as the stainless steel industry. The US government would like to expand national sources for the metals, instead of importing them.

While the industrial and economic benefits of mining are high, so are the environmental risks. One of the main problems with sulfide mining is its dangerous byproduct -sulfuric acid. All the ore in Minnesota must be dug out from underground. The process of extracting the ore removes the groundwater surrounding it, exposing it to oxygen. Exposure to oxygen, followed by another exposure to water causes the sulfides in the ore to undergo a chemical process that produces sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is highly corrosive and harmful to any living creature that encounters it.

The World Health Organization’s International Programme on Chemical Safety even has strict instructions to not let any sulfuric acid into the environment, especially because it causes water contamination. Not only can sulfuric acid leach into water, but due to its highly corrosive nature, it also dissolves heavy metals from rocks surrounding the leakage area. Combined, the sulfuric acid and heavy metals contaminate the water, making it toxic. The contamination is called acid mine drainage. Acid mine drainage in environmentally devastating, and it can affect a water system for decades.

There are two main proposed mines near the Boundary Waters. The first mine, operated by Twin Metals, is located near Ely. The second mine is operated by PolyMet and is near Hoyt Lakes. Any drainage occurring near the Twin Metals site would affect the BWCA, while drainage from the PolyMet site would indirectly run into Lake Superior. The environmental impact of such pollution would be overwhelming. Both companies have taken new measures, such as isolating the ore in plastic sheets, to try to ensure that sulfuric acid creation and acid mine drainage will not occur. Unfortunately, there has never been a sulfide mine that did not pollute, and other states and countries have been forced to pay for the clean up of the sulfide mining pollution. These new methods have never been tested in an environment. The BWCA is too fragile and precious to be a guinea pig for the companies’ plans.

Another serious problem with sulfide mining is noise pollution. Since the ore deposits are underground, mining companies use incredibly loud drills to reach them. Noise pollution is problematic for both mine sites, but is especially challenging for the Twin Metals site, since it is so close to BWCA. The noise from the site will chase off both wildlife and tourists. Andy Fisher, a resort owner southeast of Ely, reports that the noise of the mining rigs will ruin the peaceful silence and solitude the BWCA is known for, in addition to scaring away wildlife that attracts tourists. We value the BWCA for its peaceful silence, abundant wildlife, and beautiful natural landscapes. We should not ruin these attributes with the noise and acid that sulfide mining produces.

In 1998, Wisconsin signed a moratorium on mining projects. The law stated that mining projects would only be considered if a mine site had operated for ten years without any type of drainage, and had been closed for ten years without any pollution. A law such as this could help protect the BWCA from the hazards of sulfide mining.

Laws are not the only things that can be done about sulfide mining, however. There are many organizations dedicated to keeping sulfide mining out of Minnesota. If you want to help protect the BWCA, you can join organizations, such as Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, which are dedicated to keeping northern Minnesota uncontaminated by sulfide mining. Visitors have enjoyed the pristine wilderness of the BWCA for over forty years. Let us give them another forty years to enjoy, and keep sulfide mining out of the BWCA.

Tuesday Talk: Does amending the constitution move MN forward?

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:00:56 +0000

By Katie Sanders, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Katie Sanders, Interim Communications Director

Amending the state constitution is a poor substitute for legislating. Increasingly, it seems as if state legislators want to solve short-term problems by encoding them in the state constitution, a very long term solution. Two years ago, Minnesota considered and passed the Legacy Arts/Natural Resources Funding Amendment. This year, Minnesotans will be asked to vote on amending the constitution to ban same-sex-couple marriage and potentially several other social agenda issues.

Does amending the state constitution move Minnesota forward toward better policies? What’s the potential for unintended consequences of changing the constitution when we should be legislating?

Purple, Gold . . . and Green

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:00:45 +0000

By Kate Keleher, Macalester College

We’ve heard the message of environmentalism ring loudly from protesters’ megaphones, college classrooms and drum circles. Yet despite a dramatic increase of environmental awareness in recent years, it remains absent from many mainstream American debates.

Take this one: Relocation of the Minnesota Vikings stadium. For over ten years, the Vikings have advocated for a new stadium to replace the 30-year-old Metrodome that no longer meets the team's needs. The Vikings website already emphasizes that a new stadium would provide benefits to the larger community including “much-needed employment and economic activity at a critical time,” and “provisions for women, minority-owned, and small business participation.” However, it fails to address any environmental benefits that the stadium could provide.

This is a terrible loss for the general public. A new Vikings Stadium will prove to be an environmental burden unless decision-makers account for concerns about sustainability. If taxpayers contribute $600-700 million dollars of the billion dollar construction cost, as current estimates suggest, then they should not have to foot the external costs of waste, pollution, and other forms of environmental degradation. Constituents of the decision-making process for the new stadium must consider two key environmental factors – the stadium’s location and design - as they proceed with deliberations, or face the consequences.

First, the stadium’s location will have profound environmental implications. The new site will undoubtedly undergo radical transformations, which could degrade the area’s biodiversity, storm water systems, and soil quality. However, thoughtful relocation could work to mitigate the stadium’s environmental burden.

The proposed Arden Hills site raises several environmental concerns: In developing 430 acres of land, including wildlife reserves and parks, this proposed site would likely generate significant air and water quality risks. The farmer’s market site, conveniently located along public transportation lines, could reduce automobile dependency for sporting events, thus decreasing fuel consumption and green house gas emissions. Though the farmer’s market site constitutes, in my opinion, the ideal location, I hesitate to rule the existing location out of the line-up. Rebuilding on the existing site promotes the creative reuse of space, which is itself an environmentally intelligent decision. In critically evaluating the environmental pros and cons of each proposed stadium site, one acknowledges the fact that these times of transformation provide the rare opportunity to rearrange the city in a more intelligent, environmentally cognizant manner.

Next, the design and construction of the stadium itself have environmental implications. An example of a project done well; The Minneapolis Convention Center demonstrates several exciting ways in which the thoughtful design and construction of large spaces can both alleviate their environmental burden and benefit communities. The MCC has 2,613 solar panels which generate 750,000 kWh a year, enough to power 85 houses annually and offset 539 metric tons of CO 2. In adopting this kind of sustainable design, the stadium could decrease its own environmental burden. It could also begin to address the concerns about the stadium’s cost by introducing more resource efficient features such as water-saving taps and LED light bulbs.

Recognizing the environmental opportunities of the stadium’s location and the design sends the powerful message that American traditions and environmental cognizance are not mutually exclusive. In striving to increase the sustainability of sporting facilities, cities foster discussions about sustainability in new fields and promote the widespread adaptation of environmentally conscious decision-making. Stadiums in cities such as Philadelphia and Washington D.C. are already increasing their environmental sustainability. Isn’t it time Minneapolis resumed its place as a leader on these important issues?

Tax-payers, your money will be invested in this new stadium. Raise your voice to make sure it’s being spent the right way – on a stadium whose location and design ensures that football can be enjoyed in a healthy environment for generations to come!

Tuesday Talk: What’s the best path for MN health policy?

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:00:49 +0000

By Rachel Weeks, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Rachel Weeks, Communications Specialist

Today, the Affordable Care Act enters its second day of Supreme Court hearings. Hotly debated since passing two years ago, the ACA expands coverage for vulnerable populations, reigns in insurance companies and offers small business tax credits. At the center of this week’s debate is the individual mandate.

Here, in Minnesota, with health care that has long been ahead of the curve, work on a health care exchange has already begun.

What parts of the ACA are best for Minnesota? With or without the ACA, what health care policies should Minnesota pursue?

600 Words for the Planet

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:00:34 +0000

By Professor Katie Pratt, Ph.D. Macalester College

Over the next several Mondays Minnesota 2020 will run a series of columns focusing on environmental policy issues. This is part of our continuing collaboration with Macalester College's Environmental Studies Department and its students.

On college campuses across Minnesota there is much discussion about how new forms of digital media are changing the way we teach and learn. What core concepts and methods are relevant to today’s tech savvy students? Which ones have become obsolete? And to what degree can tried and true lesson plans and assignments be enhanced by engagement with new media?

These issues were very much on my mind while working with students in my Environmental Politics and Policy course at Macalester College on an op-ed writing assignment. The students in my spring semester class were assigned the task of writing 600-800 words on an environmental policy they would like to see changed or implemented. A typical college essay assignment involves showing the professor that you can extensively analyze a topic. Here the goal was much different: Convince the public that an environmental issue urgently needs our attention and make your case in just over a page of prose.

A central goal of this assignment is to teach persuasive writing, something that has long been considered a fundamental skill both within academia and beyond. Whether using type-writers or iPads, the challenge of persuasive writing is the same: Develop an original argument, support it with convincing and compelling evidence, and use clear and succinct language to develop your point. And while the craft of op-ed writing has perhaps changed very little with the advent of the internet age, students in my class engage with media through every step the writing process.

One of the first challenges is simply finding a topic that is timely and relevant beyond the walls of the classroom. Students are often drawn to my class because they are concerned about a wide variety of environmental issues. In writing an op-ed, they must evaluate the current political landscape and discern which issues deserve commentary and a call to action.

Almost all their research for this assignment takes place on the internet, and I am often amazed by how quickly students can get up to speed on an issue that only weeks ago they knew little about. For an environmental politics class, this also means students are able to comment on very recent policy changes. As a professor, more and more I come to expect that students will be abreast of current news events.

Once they have found a topic, students work on developing a rough draft. In class we held a peer review session in which they gained experience giving and receiving editorial feedback. Even in this phase digital communication is fundamental to the process. While I require students to exchange hard-copies of their draft, most students opt to do their editing digitally, exchanging versions back and forth over email and or using shared Google documents.

Where media really enters the picture, however, is in the final phase of the project. While many college writing assignments quickly find their way to a recycling bin, this semester students have the opportunity to see their writing published online. In the following weeks, Minnesota 2020 will feature a selection of the best op-eds from the class. Not only will these appear on the website but they will be linked on the MN2020 twitter feed and networked with the “Environmental Monday” series. The topics include some of the most pressing and controversial environmental issues we as Minnesotans face today—future energy needs, the fate of gray wolves, the dangers of invasive species, and even the environmental impact of the proposed Vikings stadium!

Perhaps ironically, engagement with new media networks can reinforce the values of careful writing and editing that have always played a central role in college classrooms. Students in my class learn that original and well-crafted prose is more likely to make waves across the internet. Equally as important, these mediums allow the public to come into the classroom in new ways. More and more students are writing with a virtual public in mind, and with the knowledge that their ideas are only twitter post away wider spheres of debate.