By Kelsey Staberg, Sierra Club Policy Intern

Last Friday, Representatives Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and Tim Walz stood up to the pro-polluter majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and voted against legislation that exposes Americans to toxic mercury, and creates detrimental health problems caused by smog and pollution for hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans each year.

If signed into law, the TRAIN Act (H.R. 2401) will weaken the EPA’s ability to limit mercury and other air toxics from power plants under the Clean Air Act, and require the costly preparation of unncecessary and redundant reports. This legislation would also directly affect the health of the general public.

This Act would delay the EPA’s attempt to improve air quality by blocking two long-overdue rules to reduce harmful air pollution.  Blocking these standards for just one more year puts up to 25,300 lives at risk due to toxic air pollution. Smog, soot, and other air toxics have a pernicious effect on Americans suffering from heart disease, asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases. The EPA estimates that the Clean Air Act rules that inhibit the emissions of air toxics and pollutants will prevent 230,000 premature deaths by the year 2020, and dramatically reduce other medical expenses.

It’s both disappointing and outrageous that a majority in the U.S. House would vote for this bill, claiming that the costs of basic pollution protections that Minnesotans have relied on for 40 years are too high, but I’m relieved to know that three members of our Minnesota delegation recognize that a healthy economy begins with healthy people.

Allowing corporations to dump toxic pollution into the air we breathe will not lead to economic recovery. I commend President Obama for his vow to veto this bill, and urge Senators Klobuchar and Franken to also reject the House’s most dangerous attack on the Clean Air Act since the law was enacted.

Photo by CERTs

Across the state, Minnesotans are building a clean energy economy from the ground up. Our Clean Energy Tour on July 13 took us to the small town of Spicer, located about 90 miles west of Minneapolis, where local residents and institutions are working to break their dependence on imported sources of energy, reduce their carbon footprint, and save money on their utility bills.

The owner of the Spicer SuperStop, a gas station and convenience store, installed a rooftop solar array that generates up to 25% of the business’s electricity. The Willmar Municipal Utility built two 80-meter wind turbines that will produce electricity for the next twenty years at a cost of less than five cents per kilowatt-hour. At the Prairie Woods Environmental Learning Center, a number of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, including a solar thermal heating system and an electric truck powered by on-site photovoltaic and wind installations, have cut the center’s fossil fuel use nearly down to zero.

From 1970 to 2005, Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emissions increased from less than 110 million tons of carbon dioxide to more than 160 million tons. Most of this growth took place in the transportation and electricity generation sectors, which together account for 64% of the state’s emissions.

But between 2005 and 2008, carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector in Minnesota decreased by 2.6 million tons, thanks to better automobile fuel economy and a decline in air travel. At the same time, the replacement of three million megawatt-hours of coal-generated electricity with wind power cut emissions by 1.6 million tons.

These reductions were partially offset by an increase in residential and industrial emissions. Still, Minnesota’s total greenhouse gas emissions declined by 1.2%, or 1.9 million tons of carbon dioxide, between 2005 and 2008.

What accounts for the sudden reversal of this decades-long trend of increasing emissions? The economic downturn is partly responsible: air travel became less affordable for many Minnesotans, and an increased rate of unemployment meant that fewer people were commuting to work every day, resulting in a reduction in total vehicle miles traveled.

But it isn’t just the economy. It is the choices made by thousands of ordinary Minnesotans — like those in Spicer — that have put us on the path towards a less carbon-reliant future. Minnesota’s legacy of forward-looking environmental policies has helped to enable and support these choices.

In the Twin Cities region, improvements in mass transit over the past decade have helped to increase ridership by 18.7%. The two rail services operated by Metro Transit, Hiawatha Light Rail and Northstar Commuter Rail, carry 11.2 million passengers a year, or one seventh of the system total. The success of these services — neither of which existed ten years ago — proves that Minnesotans are eager to choose less energy-intensive, more sustainable modes of transportation, if they are only given the choice.

In 2007, the Next Generation Energy Act established greenhouse gas reduction targets for the state of Minnesota. Using 2005 emissions as a base level, the state will reduce its total emissions by 15% in 2015, 30% in 2025, and 80% by 2050.

To get there, the law created two mechanisms to cut down on fossil fuel use. The first is a Renewable Energy Standard that requires utilities to obtain at least 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. As a result, many utility companies give financial assistance to customers who install renewable energy projects that feed electricity back into the grid. Xcel Energy provides payments of $2.25 per watt towards the cost of installing solar electricity systems, or $5.00 per watt if the system is manufactured in Minnesota. The Spicer SuperStop used these incentives to help pay for its photovoltaic installation.

Second, the Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) requires utility companies to meet an annual goal of reducing overall energy consumption by 1.5%. Funding is available for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural consumers to implement projects that reduce their electricity and natural gas consumption. Typical projects for residential consumers include high-efficiency heating and cooling devices, low-flow showerheads, and home energy audits. In 2009, CIP initiatives reduced carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation and natural gas use by more than 700 thousand tons.

Investing in energy efficiency allows utilities to delay or even eliminate the need to build costly new power plants to cope with rising demand. The average cost of reducing electricity consumption by one megawatt-hour through energy efficiency measures is less than $50. Generating the same amount of electricity from a coal-fired power plant would cost between $78 and $144.

Minnesotans have made significant progress in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but there is much more still to be done. How can we accelerate our transition to clean energy? One way is to adopt a Solar Energy Standard that would require 10% of Minnesota’s electricity to come from solar power by the year 2030, on top of the 25% Renewable Energy Standard established in 2007.

Minnesota has long been a leader in wind energy — it currently ranks fourth in the nation for wind power capacity, thanks in large part to the Renewable Energy Standard — but our installation of solar electric capacity has lagged. Despite the fact that our state is well-suited for producing electricity from the sun, our total solar capacity is only 3 megawatts, a little more than one large wind turbine.

A solar energy standard would help jumpstart the development of our solar industry here in Minnesota, creating 14.1 jobs for every $1 million invested. It would be a smart move for our economy, and provide a boost for Minnesotans across the state, like those in Spicer, who are working to transition away from dirty energy.

Cross-posted at the Sierra Club North Star Chapter’s blog

Last Friday, I was in southwest Iowa, where the Missouri is making lowland corn and soybean fields a soupy mess while threatening the popcorn capital of the world. Today, I spent some time in northwest Minnesota, where yet another ridiculously wet spring is making a mockery of even the latest in tile drainage technology. This kind of extreme weather—more precipitation coming in more intense bursts—is not a once every 10- or even 5-year situation. As we’ve reported in this blog before, this is the new norm.

Farmers and other agriculturalists are being forced to take notice. A recent New York Times article reported how ag scientists around the world are beginning to note how many of the failed harvests of the past decade have been the result of weather disasters—floods, drought, unprecedented heat waves.

Many of these scientists are now admitting that global climate change will probably have a net negative effect on agriculture. That’s a tough one to swallow for some, since so many in the scientific community spent the 1990′s and 2000′s telling us that carbon dioxide (the main contributor to climate change) would boost plant growth so much that it would offset any other negative effects caused by an altered climate.

As the Times reports, such a predictions were based on computer models that failed to take into account back-to-back 100-year floods in the northern Great Plains during 2009 and 2010, or rainstorms so severe that they are setting back decades of advances in soil erosion control. They also didn’t take into account more subtle effects of climate change, like increased humidity-based disease/pest problems in crops.

The good news is that the agricultural scientific community is starting to take this threat to the long-term productivity of agriculture seriously. Last month, a joint position statement on climate change was published by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America—none of these are exactly tree-hugging organizations.

It’s clear the members of these three groups are quite alarmed at the situation. The position statement points out that any benefits from higher CO2 levels will likely be offset by the negative effects of rising temperatures and altered precipitation.

And they say some of the negative effects won’t be the kinds of things that make the TV news. For example, higher soil temperatures alter nutrient  and carbon cycling by modifying soil biota. Rainfall amounts—either too much or too little—that are dramatically different than what a particular soil has evolved with will negatively alter soil chemistry and biology as well. Such changes aren’t as dramatic as a million acres of flooded bottom land, but the result can be the same: no crops are harvested come fall.

“Agriculture has an important role to play in responding to climate change, both mitigating its causes and adapting to its unavoidable impacts,” conclude the ASA, CSSA and SSSA in their position statement.

That statement is at once hopeful and brutally practical. Yes, the climate has already changed and we probably can’t change what’s already occurred. But we can also take steps to reduce the effects of such negative impacts while preventing future changes in the climate that could be even more devastating.

The position paper recommends several ways agriculture can play a positive role in both preventing more climate change and mitigating what problems are already present. One strategy is to increase crop diversity. That’s something that’s not likely anytime soon with $7 per bushel corn. But covering more of our land with a diversity of cropping systems can not only help make our soils and field ecosystems more resilient under a brave new climate regime, but it can reduce the amount of CO2 that’s pumped into the atmosphere—thus hopefully preventing more change.

And it’s not just a greater diversity of annual crops that would help. Getting more of the land covered with perennial plant systems like grass would be a tremendous way to trap more greenhouse gases (and improve water quality, by the way).

More perennials in ag can also mitigate the impacts of an already changed climate. While I saw plenty of corn and soybeans under water this past week, I also spent time on two grass-based livestock farms. The owners of these particular operations didn’t seem quite as stressed out over the state of their land during yet another wet spring—the grass was flourishing and the deep roots of these perennials were soaking up even the heavier downpours pretty nicely.

And oh yeah, these pastures were doing all this while producing beef and milk profitably—today. That seems a less risky option than waiting all summer to see if a ticked-off Mother Nature is going to stop throwing curve balls long enough to allow a fall harvest to come in.

In late March, Representative Betty McCollum sat down with Margaret Levin, State Director of the North Star Chapter to talk about a variety of issues, including the Stillwater bridge, the Endangered Species Act, and her thoughts on the health protections afforded us by the EPA.

Watch video of their conversation on the North Star Chapter blog!

Written by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Professor John Abraham

Right now in our hometown of St. Paul, Minnesota, we are preparing for what might possibly be record-breaking floods due to winter’s heavy snowfall and the threat of heavier spring downpours. Minnesota has already experienced two 100-year floods in the Red River Valley within the past 13 years. Local doctors report an increase in cases of children with asthma and other respiratory conditions. Lake Superior has seen record low water levels in recent years, threatening not only drinking water supplies but the Duluth-Superior port that receives more than 1,200 ships and 48 million tons of cargo.

All of these public health, economic, and environmental trends have been strongly linked to climate change. Multiple studies have shown that 97 percent of the most qualified climate scientists are in agreement that humans are causing the planet to warm. If this was an illness, and 97 percent of doctors recommended a certain treatment, we would take appropriate action.

Instead, the majority party in the House of Representatives is choosing to willfully defy the diagnosis and overturn established science by voting on a bill (H.R. 910) that will gut the Clean Air Act and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from ever protecting the American people from the disastrous impacts of climate change.

During the committee markup of H.R. 910, not a single Republican voted to even acknowledge the validity of EPA’s scientific finding that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” caused by human activities, and a threat to public health. The rejection of those amendments is shocking to scientists who understand the serious risks Americans face from global climate change.

This places the climate deniers on the same side as those fringe extremists who denied the harmful impacts of cigarette smoking and DDT, and the causes of acid rain and ozone depletion. Proponents of H.R. 910 are denying science and dangerously on the wrong side of history.

We believe now is the time to confront climate change. If we act wisely, we can simultaneously protect the environment, create jobs, diversify our energy supplies, and improve national security.

A recent report by Pew Environment Group shows the U.S. has now fallen to number three behind China and Germany for clean energy private investment. Passage of H.R. 910 will guarantee America loses out on the jobs of the future by obstructing efforts to build the new clean energy economy. It will deepen America’s dependence on dirty coal and imported oil instead of creating American jobs through investments in renewable resources and energy efficiency.

Our country must turn the problems presented by climate change into an opportunity. Instead of devoting its time to discrediting scientists and undermining the EPA, Congress should put more faith in the genius of the American spirit to protect our environment and human health while creating economic growth. With the right clean energy incentives and framework, we believe America can out-innovate and out-build anyone in the world. The proponents of H.R. 910 not only deny climate change, they undermine America’s ability to find solutions that benefit consumers, workers and the environment.

Every single member of Congress has a choice: deny the science of climate change or take real steps to confront a changing climate. Congress must accept scientific reality and act on climate change.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D) represents Minnesota’s fourth congressional district. She serves on the House Appropriations and Budget Committees. Professor John Abraham is an associate professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.

*Minnesota Environmental Partnership accepts posts by Minnesota’s elected officials that comply with our nonprofit’s 501(c)(3) status. Read our blog submission guidelines here.

The BlueGreen Alliance proposes investments in cleaner, more advanced power generation, including assistance for advancements in and rapid deployment of technology, improving efficiency and maintaining highly-skilled and living wage jobs. They also urged assistance for workers and communities affected by a transition from fossil fuel generation to renewables.

Want to make sure your voice is heard locally? The Sierra Club North Star Chapter is hosting a Cheers to Clean Air Happy Hour tonight (March 15^th) from 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. at Common Roots Cafe in Minneapolis! Come learn more about the issues and write letters in support of the work of the EPA to legislators.  For additional action on this issue or information, check out our blog!

View the BlueGreen Alliance’s statement, Protecting Our Health and Safety, Building a Stronger Economy.

- Our nation’s bedrock of federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, are enforced by the EPA.

- In our region, the EPA helped protect Northeastern Minnesota’s water from serious environmental damage, after it declared that the draft Environmental Impact Statement for PolyMet’s proposed toxic non-ferrous sulfide mine presented unacceptable risks to the environment.

- Just recently, the EPA put a stop to catastrophic water pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia.

- And, the agency is currently leading efforts nationally to confront global warming pollution and ensure environmental justice.

Xxxx

Now, however, the strength of those protections is at risk, because the Obama administration is receiving pressure to rein in the EPA’s authority and many new members of Congress are attacking the agency’s ability to do its job.

We need to join together and publicly show our support for the EPA’s role in keeping our nation’s water and air clean and healthy. It is imperative that the EPA is allowed to continue its effective work.

Please join people and organizations from around the country to help support the important work of the EPA:

1. Join the campaign: “Send the EPA a Valentine”
Visit WeHeartEPA.org to sign a Valentine stating, “We love the EPA’s role in protecting our water, air and health.” We want this campaign shared across the state and across the country. The signatures will be delivered in person to the EPA on Feb. 14. Please share this website with others as soon as possible.

2. Write a letter from your organization to the Obama Administration urging them to continue to support the EPA’s role in enforcing existing laws that protect our Great Outdoors. Download a template letter to use and/or modify for your own purposes.

Together, we can make it known that we value the EPA’s efforts to keep us healthy by working for clean air and water.

Recently, a good friend of Fresh Energy said he couldn’t bear to read the news from Cancun. That is, he didn’t want to know what news was coming from the United Nation’s Conference of Parties #16 on a global, binding climate deal. Of course, he was disappointed after last year’s result in Copenhagen for COP15. He’s not alone either, as Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said COP16 “won’t result in anything” because no “big” world leaders showed up.

Well, here’s why COP16 matters: we climate advocates don’t have a holiday or even a movie coming out. Sure, there’s Earth Day, but that got taken over by Oprah and the folks who recycle (bless ‘em).

As a result, we have very few chances to keep discussing climate solutions while the smoke keeps right on coming out of the stacks. Ironically, the planet is the show but it only plays once a year on one small, local stage.

This is our chance to take over the conversation and bring it back to climate. It’s a chance to show how some so-called “undeveloped” or “uncivilized” nations are addressing their own contributions to the global problem. It’s a chance to show how world economies are growing (not stalling) with solutions that reduce carbon, create markets, and enrich citizens. It’s a chance to show how climate will affect the stability of developed nations with more emigration, more power to violent regimes, and less food.

COP16 will also point a spotlight on nations that are (and are not) players in the process. While President Obama was noticed for flying in to rescue the framework for agreement in Copenhagen last year, other nations such as Canada and Russia were noticed for their deal-breaking.

In the end – win, lose, or draw – COP16′s effects could be simply to refocus our efforts on local, state, and regional solutions. The next month will be interesting. Stay tuned.

A new study by Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz at Yale University found that that only 25 percent of Americans have ever heard of ocean acidification. Fresh Energy and the Science Museum of Minnesota are taking steps to improve public knowledge about the roots of ocean acidification. Please join Fresh Energy on the evening of Thursday, November 4, 2010, for the Minnesota film premiere of the documentary, A Sea Change.

The award-winning, feature length A Sea Change screens at 6:30PM. There is a small charge for admission (go to www.smm.org/adultprograms for details), and your ticket includes a panel discussion after the film with its director, producer and lead scientist, NOAA’s Dr. Richard Feely. You’ll also be able to socialize with filmmakers at a dessert reception.

Learn about the issue of ocean acidification and its links to climate change from Dr. Richard A. Feely, one of the world’s preeminent chemical oceanographers. Dr. Feely is a Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. He also is a professor at the University of Washington School of Oceanography. His major research areas are carbon cycling and ocean acidification.  He also has local Minnesota roots: Dr. Feely holds a B.A. in chemistry from the University of St. Thomas. From there he went on to earn a Ph.D. at Texas A&M University. Dr. Feely has authored more than 180 refereed research publications. He was awarded the Department of Commerce Gold Award in 2006 for his pioneering research on ocean acidification.

His observations should cause concern.  Chuck says, “Global warming is real in Greenland. You can hear it.  You can see the shrinking glaciers, and the melt-water atop the massive ice cap, and you know that as it melts the seas will rise, with disastrous consequence.”  To read more about his adventure, click here.