We held a forum on the state of energy and climate change related legislation in the Minnesota State House, with the amazing Representative Patty Acomb and the amazing Representative Larry Kraft. Over 80 people attended.
You can download the power point presentation used in this forum here.
The current draft, subject to update, of our legislative ask is here.
A recording of the forum is here:
This is an urgent request for action that requires your immediate attention, before Tuesday March 29th. See the link below to take action.
Everyone in Minnesota deserves a stable climate, clean air, and safe water. Unfortunately, the misnamed “Clean Fuel Standard” (also called the Low Carbon Fuel Standard) is positioned to jeopardize all of these rights.
The Minnesota Clean Fuels Standard Legislation (HF2083 & SF2027) is framed as a climate solution, but it’s actually a corporate handout. Currently, the MN Clean Fuel Standard Legislation is supported by corporate agricultural and oil interests because it channels money into furthering pipeline infrastructure and unsustainable fuel sources such as ethanol. Clean Fuel Standards work well in other states because they have a goal of 100% carbon intensity reduction by 2050 and the revenue from the standards go towards electrification. Right now, HF2083 will get us to 20% emission reduction by 2035, with no other goals and no promise of where the revenue will go. Because of this, the standard will subsidize ethanol without getting us to electrification. This is worse than an ineffective policy – it’s a damaging policy. A bill that doesn’t get us to 100% carbon intensity reduction by 2050 will set Minnesota back.
The other important issue around subsidized ethanol is that its production creates CO2, a pipeline fuel not only energy intensive to transport, but also hazardous. Ethanol plant producers plan to distribute liquid CO2 to different states via a government-subsidized, yet privately-owned pipeline. Not only is a pipeline a waste of resources to build while only putting a small drop in the bucket in our emissions reductions – already out-of-state investors are outbidding local farmers in southern Minnesota for agricultural land and destabilizing local economies. In the future, a CO2 pipeline could actually be used for enhanced oil recovery (a process similar to fracking), making yet another negative impact on climate, water, and air.
We need to tell the legislators at the Minnesota House of Representatives on the Climate and Energy Finance and Policy to vote down any bill that doesn’t commit us to 100% carbon neutral fuels by 2050. The legislation on HF2083 will be heard on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, so contact legislators today!
Click here and do this thing, thanks!.
Our state has made progress in reducing emissions and promoting clean transportation options by adopting Clean Cars Minnesota to provide greater options for consumers to find and purchase low- and zero-emission vehicles. We’ve also invested in mass transit to reduce emissions in the Twin Cities. Passing a Clean Fuels Standard that doesn’t get us to zero emission fuel by 2050 will not benefit Minnesotans – it will only benefit large corporations and out-of-state investors while sending us backwards on our climate goals.
Madi Johnson,
MN350, in cooperation with the DFL Environmental Caucus
This is a story about pollution in a place far far away from Minnesota. Chicago. But the story is familiar to any one following environmental issues in Minneapolis.
Adam Mahoney (pictured above) at Grist writes:
Tucked into the city’s Southwest Side, the once-industrial corridor is now a part of the region’s quickly growing warehouse and logistics network. What does that lead to? Air pollution. More diesel air pollution than anywhere else in the country, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. What that doesn’t lead to: well-paying jobs. Nearly 45 percent of children and 30 percent of adults live in poverty. In addition, there’s the lethal combination of over-policing and incarceration, compounded by the area’s racial makeup — 67 percent Latino and 30 percent Black. It’s also home to the Cook County Jail, the largest jail in America.
But in this seemingly dismal setting, there has emerged a great success story. According to a recently published peer reviewed study,
Residential energy use represents roughly 17% of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States… Legacy housing policies and financial lending practices have negatively impacted housing quality and home ownership in non-Caucasian and immigrant communities. Both factors are key determinants of household energy use… We estimate energy use and emissions of 60 million household to clarify how energy efficiency and carbon emissions vary by race, ethnicity, and home ownership. We find that per capita emissions are higher in Caucasian neighborhoods than in African-American neighborhoods, even though the former live in more energy-efficient homes (low energy use intensity). This emissions paradox is explained by differences in building age, rates of home ownership, and floor area in these communities. In African-American neighborhoods, homes are older, home ownership is lower (reducing the likelihood of energy retrofits), and there is less floor area per person compared to Caucasian neighborhoods. Statistical models suggest that historical housing policies, particularly “redlining”, partially explain these differences….
Mahoney brings the paradox to Chicago’s Southwest Side:
Chicago’s 60623 zip code illuminates this. The average resident in the zip code emits the least amount of greenhouse gases out of all the city’s 67 zip codes, according to the study. Households in the community are also extremely energy efficient. In comparison, the average resident in the city’s affluent, majority-white Near North Side emits 2.8 times more greenhouse gases than those in the Southwest Side community. Homes in 60623 are also 1.5 times more energy-efficient than those on the Near North Side.
This is where social justice and addressing climate change meld into Green New Deal-esque policies. Click through to read all about Black and Latino neighborhoods pay more for energy despite far lower emissions, and lets see if we can apply some of this information here at home.
Bill grew a nice beard! Plus, he has some really important things to say here:
icture-in-picture” allowfullscreen>
The referred to Substack article is HERE.
COP26 Starts
Conference of The Parties 26 is a climate summit being held in Glasgow. This is widely called the “last best chance” to address climate change.
Commentary and excellent perspective by Michael Mann, author of <a target=”_blank” href=”https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088RN8FCF/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B088RN8FCF&linkCode=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=76c3e66df083df4c2bf17d8f9ac4bc16″ rel=”noopener”>The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet</a> (Amazon associates link*) interviewed on CNN:
Climate Change Disinformation
There are still people who do not “believe in” climate change, and there is still an anti-science industry out there keeping that lack of belief alive. This is just a reminder of the DeSmog Blog Climate Disinformation Database. Check it out!
Human Life vs. Climate Change
Climate communicator Dana Nuccitelli has a piece discussing how “new research quantifies how actions to curb climate change will yield immediate benefits from cleaner air, better health, and longer lives.” It is HERE. In it, Dana refers to this new study on evaluating and valuing rapid decarbonization of the global energy system. ‘
Don’t forget to attend the upcoming forum on Healthy Farms and Healthy Soils!
A recent study out of Germany shows that the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted as part of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda provide more co-benefits than trade-offs. Technologies such as carbon capture and nuclear energy would not have these benefits.
From the study, “Improving energy efficiency, reducing energy-services demand and switching to renewables provide the most co-benefits. In contrast, carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy likely lead to multiple trade-offs.”
The study also looks at the likelihood of a given policy being adapted, and finds “…that measures with more co-benefits are more frequently adopted.”
This is yet another in a growing body of studies that demonstrate that we should be optimistic about our physical and technological ability to electrify and decarbonize.
The study, which is not behind a paywall, can be found HERE.