Reader's View: US must ‘invest in our independence’ 

Brett Cease

Duluth News Tribune, 7/12/2025

Independence Day provided Americans the chance to reflect on the sacrifice of those who came before us to enshrine the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear.

This year, President Donald Trump and the governing GOP majority in Congress chose to honor the holiday by passing what is projected to be one of the largest legislative bills in U.S. history to increase the national debt — by nearly $3 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

As a proud father concerned about my children’s futures, this didn’t feel like independence to me. It felt like we’re yoking the next generation of Americans to investments we should be making today.

The broad majority of the costs in the bill are from enormous tax breaks going predominantly to wealthy Americans. To help offset these unsustainable costs, the GOP-led Congress chose to double down and eliminate some of the most promising clean-energy tax credits that have helped our country transition to becoming more energy independent.

Especially for states like Minnesota, which has no fossil-fuel resources of its own, this may mean an ongoing dependence on imports. In 2024 alone, our state’s economy lost more than $22 billion per year in imported fossil-fuel costs, equivalent to about 1.5 times the funding for our entire K-12 education system.

Minnesota supports clean energy, net metering, virtual power plants, and storage and grid resources, all of which allow Minnesotans to achieve more energy independence by helping families and local businesses in our state save money and take control from where our energy comes. The money we save on fossil-fuel imports and electricity bills could then be invested in strengthening our local communities and economies.

Moving forward, I hope we work together to support policies that actually invest in our independence.

Brett Cease

Duluth

Bloodsuckers on my mind, and not just in advance of Halloween

Mark Cannon

Minnpost 10/27/2023

It’s the season for frightening ghouls so let me tell you about a couple little bloodsuckers that scare me.

As the climate warms, the home range for the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus is moving north, and with them we can expect to see more of the untreatable viral diseases they transmit. Dengue fever, yellow fever, chikungunya and zika cause untold human suffering throughout the tropical world, and the societal costs in lost revenue and health care are staggering.

Indeed, these and other “tropical” diseases are largely responsible for the dire financial situation in many developing countries.

How did we get to a point in snowy Minnesota where we have to think about tropical diseases? Climate change, that’s how.

Even slightly warmer winters and an earlier spring foster increases in mosquito numbers, expand their geographic range and accelerate the development of infectious organisms within the host mosquitoes.

Furthermore, modern transportation means people and foodstuffs can travel hundreds of miles in a day. So it is only a matter of time before virus meets host insect, who in turn feeds on unsuspecting Minnesotan human lounging lakeside.

Fevers, malaise, headaches and joint pain ensue; local physicians, at first mystified, soon realize they need to bone up on their tropical medicine. We need to prevent this scenario becoming a reality.

Aside from warmer average temperatures, climate change means an increase in severe weather events. Flooded sewage systems and overcrowding due to home and infrastructure damage lead to emergence of food- and water-borne illnesses.

Salmonella, shigella, campylobacter, yersinia, leptospirosis and typhus are not words you ever want to see on your test results. These pathogens cause prolonged illness and even death in vulnerable populations like the very young, old, or immunocompromised. Virtually any major flooding event you care to review will have been associated with upticks in these food- and water-borne illnesses.

Infection is by no means the only health risk associated with climate change. To protect our health, our peace and our economy we need to work furiously hard now with the rest of the world on new technologies, strategies and attitudes to minimize our dependence on carbon-based fuels.

The good news is that more politicians, policymakers and leaders of industry are signing on to make a difference. You can, too: by speaking to your representatives, by joining your local chapter of climate activists and by supporting legislation designed to let renewable energy fulfill its potential as a job-creating economic driver and climate change solution.

Mark Cannon, Eden Prairie. Mark Cannon is a local practicing infectious diseases physician and former laboratory virologist. 

Protect Loved Ones From Climate Change

Michael Overend

Morrison County Record, 11/19/2021

Regardless of our age, sex, race, color, creed, we are all human and we need someone to love and someone to love us. The love of important people in our lives provides meaning for our existence and our actions. We all agree on the importance of the safety, health and well-being of those we love. We share these feelings no matter what city, state or nation we call home. Take a moment and think about how you safeguard your loved ones, right now…

Is global warming important to you? Global warming threatens all of us, including those we love; one-third of Americans were directly impacted in 2020. Our children, and future generations, are in increased danger as it worsens. We all need clean air, water, adequate food and shelter. Burning fossil fuels rapidly worsens global warming. Just 1.1 degree of global warming has already caused deadly severe weather-related heat waves, droughts, floods, fires, crop and soil damage with increased disease, poverty, climate-refugees and wars. Please act to protect those you love.

Join Citizens’ Climate Lobby (cclusa.org). Ask Senators Smith and Klobuchar and Representative Stauber to protect our children’s future by Pricing Carbon with a Dividend, the best global warming solution. 

Thoughts on Climate Change

Pat Fettes 

Mille Lacs Messenger, 11/10/2021

We are hearing more about climate change these days as policymakers grapple with how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe you heard that global warming is increasing severe weather events, and that we need to reach zero carbon emissions by 2050 to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

More people are seeing climate change as a personal threat. It hit home for me this summer when the smoke from Canadian wildfires that blanketed Minnesota triggered my asthma, and when a dear friend lost her brother as Hurricane Ida ravaged New Orleans.

Has it hit home for you? Are you frustrated by declining walleye in Lake Mille Lacs? Know a farmer struggling due to the Minnesota drought? Have sticker shock when you opened your homeowner’s insurance bill? Climate change has a hand in all these problems.

Climate change is hitting home and we need to tell Representative Stauber and Senators Klobuchar and Smith to support policies NOW that will reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030.  An option being considered in the reconciliation bill is a carbon fee for fossil fuel companies combined with household dividends, a fiscally responsible approach that will reduce carbon emissions and stimulate the development of clean energy.

You can find more information about carbon fees and click a link to easily contact your members of congress at cclusa.org. They DO listen--and they need to know that climate change is on our doorstep and we can’t afford to pretend no one is home. 

The Cost of Inaction on Climate

Peter Berglund

Star Tribune, 11/19/2021

 We now know that the infrastructure bill has passed Congress. So, what is the fate of the Build Back Better Act (BBB, the social spending bill), if it stands on its own?

Will Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin or Congress as a whole be willing to spend more money with the BBB bill? With COP26 underway in Glasgow discussing how to slow the climate crisis, and all the recent news telling us that we have to act immediately, how about we get a separate bill in Congress to address climate change instead of including climate action in the BBB bill? The climate crisis is such a huge problem that it should be addressed in its own bill. There's talk that Manchin has ties to the coal industry, so, can we go around Manchin? Maybe we could get the other Democratic members of the U.S. House and Senate, and a couple (enough) Republicans, to support meaningful climate action if there was a stand-alone climate bill.

There are many options for climate action. The Citizens' Climate Lobby is advocating for a price on carbon, with all the revenue returned as a monthly dividend to the public. Economists say that we should put a price on "what we don't want" to drive action and to account for the societal costs of fossil fuels. Inaction on reversing the climate crisis will cost more in lives and dollars than taking action now. Call your members of the U.S. House and Sens. Klobuchar and Smith.

Peter Berglund, St. Paul

Citizens Addressing our Changing Climate: Bemidji derecho increases worries about local wildfires

Op-Ed by Polly Merhar

Park Rapids Enterprise, 10/15/2025

Like many of you, I enjoy living in northern Minnesota because I love to be surrounded by forests and nature. So, in June, I was heartbroken when our area experienced a devastating derecho, which knocked down a reported 9 million trees.

Last spring, forests just north of my hometown of Two Harbors were hit with several wildfires that changed their landscape and impacted their lives at work and leisure. I have heard from many people that one of the factors driving them to clean out their downed woodlots and wild areas in our area is their fear of wildfires in the next few years.

This year, we also experienced the burning of forests ravaged by wildfires in Canada because the smoke was blown south, to our area. Living with smoke made it clear that it is a danger to our health and takes away our ability and desire to recreate outside. There was a month this summer when it felt like I was held inside either by rain or smoke, sometimes it was raining smoke.

In the U.S., the annual area burned by wildfires has more than doubled over the past three decades. That means lost habitat for animals, and threats to human lives and health. Wildfires create harmful smoke pollution and increase the cost of insuring and rebuilding our communities.

Healthy forests are also a key part of the climate puzzle, with American forests currently removing 12% of our annual climate pollution from the atmosphere, with the potential to do even more.

It’s clear that we need to take action to reduce these threats and nurture our forests so they can continue to do their essential work. That’s why it is critical that Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, as members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, vote to support the Fix Our Forests Act (HR.471)(S.1452).

This bipartisan legislation directly addresses the root causes of America’s escalating wildfires, allowing for more timely forest management projects.

It empowers forest managers to act quickly on common-sense solutions, such as thinning dense undergrowth, removing dead trees, utilizing modern fire detection systems, and strengthening our wildland firefighting workforce.

At the same time, it preserves strong environmental protections, ensures tribal consultation, and builds in early community input — balancing urgency with accountability.

A version of the bill already passed the House earlier this year with overwhelming support: 279 representatives — including Republicans and Democrats from across the country — voted yes. That’s a rare show of unity in today’s Congress, and it reflects the shared understanding that wildfire resilience is not a partisan issue.

We’re increasingly seeing how wildfire smoke does not respect state boundaries. For the third summer in a row, smoke has drifted across the country, triggering dangerous air pollution alerts in states far from the flames. What burns in Canada travels elsewhere, and vice versa. This is not just a Minnesota crisis — it’s a national one.

Senators on the Agriculture Committee, including Senator Smith, now have the chance to move this legislation forward. By passing the Fix Our Forests Act, they can protect lives, livelihoods and lands by reducing wildfire risk, strengthening local economies, and ensuring science-based forest restoration.

We cannot afford a delay. Every season brings more fire-prone days, more destruction and an increased risk to more families.

As fall approaches, I hope Senators Klobuchar and Smith will have the time to take a peaceful stroll in one of Minnesota’s beautiful forests.

Walking under the stunning autumn canopy, experiencing the slanting fall light through the golden leaves, and hearing the gentle crunch of leaves underfoot will no doubt be a welcome reprieve from the fast-paced world of Congress for an hour or two.

I also hope it will inspire her to support the Fix Our Forests Act and preserve these sacred places that Minnesotans love.

Polly Merhar is a member of the Citizens' Climate Lobby organization. For more information, visit CitizensClimateLobby.org.

Nuclear energy--the best imperfect solution yet. 

Op-Ed by Katya Gordon

Lake County Press, 3/14/2025

You have been reading about nuclear energy in this paper. This issue has changed a great deal over the years without most of us, myself included, realizing it. It is hotly debated in environmental and climate-minded groups, including the Citizens Climate Lobby, of which I am a member. Proponents of nuclear point to its clear advantage as a clean energy, its value as a base load energy source (keeping the lights on when renewables are inactive) and its highly regulated and safe waste practices. Opponents reject nuclear based on the high cost and slow pace of building nuclear plants, the fear around toxic waste, and the potential (and past) exploitation of communities near nuclear plants. While proponents speak of the high electric demand that is forecasted due to electrification and data centers, those against argue that we must reduce our consumption and recycle its products to the degree that distasteful and dangerous developments like nuclear plants and potentially toxic mines are unnecessary.

I could not tell you where I would have stood on this ten years ago, but I can tell you what I think today. Having watched us humans grapple with a growing climate crisis and all the financial, institutional, and natural stresses it lays on us, I can say with some level of confidence that disruption will continue to be the norm even as millions of people and governments do their best to mitigate the effects of climate which include political unrest, famine, and an unprecedented number of people on the move. To put it bluntly, the human race is not poised to evolve smoothly and quickly into a world where advanced a small fraction of today's emissions that we can run ourselves solely on sun, waves, and water.

This does not mean some demands do not warrant a critical eye. I am dismayed that Al, that didn't exist a few years ago, is considered so critical that we must all bow to the inevitable development of data centers immediately, however they tax our current electric power sources. There are alternative responses to the one that assumes we must provide free, unlimited, on-demand AI services for everyone in the modern world--but to get at other answers, we must have a functioning political system. It may take skyrocketing utility bills at communities near data centers to draw enough attention to this problem to regulate it.

Meantime, there are other critical modern services that are, indeed, drawing up the demand on electricity, most notably electric cars and heat pumps. And in developing countries where coal is the path of least resistance, however lethal it is, people are demanding the electricity that we have enjoyed for over a hundred years, and I for one don't blame them. Demand for electricity is, by any measure, growing. Because of this, nuclear doubters need to answer to the assertions below, which I find compelling.

1. Nuclear is cleanly produced by any standard. Its waste products can be and are safely stored as they cool. Better yet, they are becoming recyclable. What other form of energy can claim that? "There is no free lunch," says physicist and Citizens Climate Lobby volunteer Barbara Jones in Ely. Blades from wind turbines need to be recycled. Solar energy takes up vast tracts of land and provides only when the sun shines. Natural gas and oil have major problems with both production and waste that is dirty and dangerous.

2. Though nuclear energy is expensive, it provides baseload power (when all other forms fail). Without nuclear, studies show that we cannot get off our dependence on fossil fuels quickly if ever. Further, the cost of nuclear will drop as research and development and expertise re-start after a few decades out of favor.

This is all immediately relevant because the MN legislature is considering a bipartisan bill to lift the 30-year ban on nuclear energy. I have been on a steep learning curve with nuclear and have come to wholly support lifting the moratorium. If nothing else, the imperative to transform our energy system necessitates comparing all types of energies, and nuclear is undeniably a contender. Lifting the moratorium allows us to consider it on its merits.

Yes, we must do better with local communities. The Prairie Island Indian Community, which lives adjacent to a nuclear plant and which stores its waste (for a price), has spoken compellingly about the role it was not allowed to play in the creation of the plant, which opened 50 years ago. I have watched Senate hearings with the MN legislature, including tribal representatives. The Senate’s bill, we are assured, will imbed local community decision-making into law. We must be involved and make sure it does.

The climate does not give us time to insist on perfection, as Minnesota already knows with its goal of using only carbon-free sources of energy by 2040. Adding nuclear to the mix provides the clearest path to reaching this goal that I have seen yet. It is heartening to see numbers that actually add up! It gives me a real and realistic hope that we can not only avoid the worst future climate scenarios, but that everyone— not just Republicans, who largely favor nuclear--must bend in order to do so.

Katya Gordon is a Two Harbors resident and reporter for the Lake County Press She can be reached at kgordon@cherryroad.com.