Political Perspectives: Responding to climate change policies in Minnesota - Bemidji Pioneer

Political Perspectives: Responding to climate change policies in Minnesota

This next segment in our series of joint commentaries from the Beltrami County Democrat and Republican Parties discusses how each is currently addressing the topic of climate change.

This opinion piece is the second in a series of joint commentaries from the Beltrami County Democrat and Republican Parties called Political Perspectives, addressing political issues from both sides of the aisle as the general election approaches in November.

The topic the parties selected to address in this piece is how Democrats and Republicans are currently addressing the topic of climate change.

Democrat perspective

Climate change is happening. Anyone who has lived or played in the Bemidji area over time will tell you that winters are getting warmer and more erratic, threatening our winter tourism and logging industries.

The state climatology office reports dramatic increases since 2000 in heavy rains like the flooding disasters we had last month. Global heat records are being broken every day as we write this.

There are many sources of good scientific information about our changing climate, and 99% of active climate scientists agree that human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses, CO2 and methane are driving the change.

ADVERTISEMENT

A good summary by local geographer Charlie Parsons was published in the Pioneer on June 12. Some folks question the science, but it is based on the basic laws of physics such as the laws of thermodynamics, laws which were not written by politicians, and which cannot be broken.

The laws of physics say that increasing GHG in the air alters the movement of energy in our atmosphere and when that occurs, the climate HAS to change.

So, what are we going to do about it? Thankfully, much of the technology we need to build an economy with low greenhouse gas emissions is already here. Some new technologies are being adopted with no government action: any major retail store now carries electric lawn and garden tools because they are quieter, cleaner, cheaper to run and easier to maintain.

Other improvements will require incentives or government investment in new infrastructure, much as we fund our roads and bridges.

The DFL supports policies to “rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions and provide an equitable energy future, renewable electricity, affordable housing, multi-modal transportation options and clean energy jobs.”

Minnesota is currently ahead of the nation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation (54% decrease), and the state has the goal of reaching carbon-free electricity by 2040.

Most of the actions we need to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pay additional dividends, including saving money, safety, energy security, comfort and reducing water and air pollution.

Yes, investments cost money, but if we don’t cut greenhouse gases now the costs of adapting to a rapidly warming planet will dwarf the cost of preventing the warming in the first place.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our young people, both Democrat and Republican are pushing their elders to take effective action now, as they look at what their lives will be like in 40 years without it.

Republican perspective

The term “climate change” brings to mind many terrible images of doom and destruction. It’s become a battle cry of radical activists and is being used to instill terror, anxiety and compliance in today’s populations.

The issue is multi-faceted, but there are some points we can all agree on. Everyone wants clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and an environment that is safe to live in.

The Republican Party believes that measures to address climate change should have a significant impact, be reasonable and be responsible. We believe that Gov. Tim Walz’s proposal for Minnesota to be carbon-free by 2040 fails on all these counts.

Will this proposal have a significant impact on the climate in our state? Doubtful. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) makes up less than .05% of the atmosphere while water vapor (H2O) is the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases. According to NASA, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface. Perhaps we should become water-free by 2040!

Is Walz’s proposal reasonable? Per the Center of the American Experiment’s recent analysis, the cost of being carbon-free will raise Minnesotan’s electricity bills by almost $3,900 per year and we would lose more than 79,000 jobs statewide. These draconian bans on carbon emissions would inflict enormous economic harm and human suffering.

The hardest-hit communities would be those most vulnerable — low-income and marginalized communities for whom necessities such as food, health care and transportation become unaffordable. Meanwhile, the economically elite and politically powerful would benefit from carbon bans.

Finally, is Walz’s proposal responsible? The Governor has recommended that 40% of Minnesota’s electricity come from wind or solar by 2025. The move to wind and solar leaves Minnesotans at the mercy of the weather…and we all know that you can’t count on the weatherman.

ADVERTISEMENT

Reliable electricity has to be produced at the moment of demand — if the wind isn’t blowing or the sun shining our lights go out. According to CAE,“Minnesota would experience a devastating 55-hour blackout in late January if wind and solar output is the same as it was in the year 2020, and electricity demand was the same as in 2021.”

Drastic, irresponsible bans on carbon emissions are the cornerstones of the climate scare agenda. Their plan threatens reliability and harms all Minnesotans, especially vulnerable communities. Republicans care about both the people and thus true “Climate Justice.”

ADVERTISEMENT