Readers Write: Copper mining, the value of rain gardens, hyperbolic political rhetoric, James Lileks

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The U.S. is a net exporter of copper ore and concentrates. We do not need to mine more copper (“Why Minnesotans need to pay attention to copper tariffs,” Strib Voices, July 15). What we do need is more refining capability. Instead of beating the drum for more mining, especially in the environmentally sensitive giant wet sponge of northeastern Minnesota, we should be building our refining capability so we no longer need to buy back our copper as imported metal.

The one sensible thing coming out of Washington, D.C., is the decision to stop minting copper-plated cent coins, saving 220 tons of copper every year for higher uses than weighing down penny jars in U.S. households. 220 tons works out to 440,000 pounds of copper saved each year.

The assay of NorthMet (formerly PolyMet) holdings is not a rich one, being only 0.26% copper, while Arizona ores yield four times as much. According to Friends of the Boundary Waters, the mine would, on average, “need to pulverize 266 pounds of rock to produce one pound of copper.”

The answer is not mining more ore, which we are unable to refine. The answer is to build refining capacity for the ore we are now exporting for refinement.

Thomas Koehler, Two Harbors, Minn.

•••

Dave Lislegard’s input about Minnesota copper tariffs and copper mines sounded reasonable until he wrote, “We are fortunate to be able to mine in a way that protects the environment ... .” Please give one example of safe copper sulfide mining anywhere. I’ve been looking for years now and have found none. Because, with current technology, there are none.

If we are to “treasure our environment and make sure we are responsible consumers of our products and energy,” promoting more copper recycling is another way to increase our copper supply. Currently less than half of our copper is recycled. Increasing that to 50% would be equivalent to multiple such proposed copper sulfide mines near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Duluth.

The environmental impact of recycling is trivial compared to any mine. Recycled copper would not leave the U.S. to be refined either. It would truly belong to us.

Recycling is not promoted the way huge conglomerate foreign mining companies promote their interests. If it would replace the equivalent of nine NorthMet mines, it is worth implementing first. When there needs to be the first copper sulfide mine in Minnesota, so be it ... but not next to the BWCA and not with current technology.

Putting 50% tariffs on imported copper will almost instantly create a crisis for our country, but it is man-made. We all know how that can change. We must not sacrifice irreplaceable natural treasures for temporary tariffs.

Fellow Minnesotans, don’t bet more than we’re willing to lose. Especially right now.

Debra Masters, Shoreview

•••

There has never been a copper mine that did not scar the land.

The pollution and poison from mines in the last couple of centuries are epic and irremediable. And anthropologists are still discovering prehistoric mines. As long as profit is involved in mining, whether it is permitted by the government or touted as necessary for national security, human beings and our environment will be sacrificed.

Tariffs are the responsibility of the legislature. Their use on copper producers is one more example of our president’s disregard for law, mankind and the environment in his insane desire to ignorantly meddle in all things.

John Crivits, St. Paul

As an organization that promotes and installs rain gardens to protect our waters, we were disappointed by the misleading framing of “Minneapolis rain gardens were built to reduce water pollution. Research shows they’re making it worse” (July 13).

The article highlights a study showing that some rain gardens with underdrains may carry phosphorus into storm sewers. This is an important finding — but the headline makes a sweeping generalization that unfairly casts doubt on the efficacy of rain gardens in general. In fact, most rain gardens are built without underdrains — the majority of those we design and install do not include them. When properly designed and maintained, rain gardens are highly effective at reducing runoff, capturing pollutants, supporting pollinators and creating community green spaces. Their many benefits far outweigh the specific concern raised in this study, which applies to a small subset of rain gardens.

The article also links rain gardens to beach closures due to excess phosphorus, without noting that major sources of phosphorus pollution include grass clippings, soil erosion and irrigation overspray. Simple yard care practices like sweeping clippings play a critical role in protecting water quality.

We support continued research and improvement of green infrastructure — but public trust in effective solutions should not be undermined by oversimplified or sensational headlines.

Laura Scholl, Minneapolis

The writer is executive director of Metro Blooms.

I respectfully disagree with Jeff Naylor’s defense of inflammatory political rhetoric in his recent letter (“Calling a spade a spade isn’t inflammatory,” Readers Write, July 10). While I understand his frustration with current political developments, his argument overlooks several important concerns about the casual use of historically weighted terms. When we routinely apply terms like “fascist” to standard political actions, we risk devaluing language that should be reserved for genuinely authoritarian behavior. True fascism involves the systematic destruction of democratic institutions, not merely controversial policies or strong rhetoric. By lowering this bar, we make it harder to identify and respond to actual fascism should it emerge.

Many of the letter writer’s examples, while concerning, have precedent in previous administrations of both parties. Military deployment during civil unrest, heated political rhetoric and criticism of media outlets have occurred under presidents across the political spectrum without universal condemnation as fascist behavior. Democratic systems inherently involve contentious debate and strong executive actions.

Similar language and actions by politicians from both parties are often characterized differently based on partisan perspective. This selective application of extreme terminology undermines the credibility of such critiques and suggests they may be driven more by political opposition than objective assessment.

Perhaps most importantly, this approach escalates political tensions and makes compromise increasingly difficult. When we routinely describe half the country using the worst possible terms, we erode the shared civic culture necessary for democratic governance. This strategy often backfires politically by alienating moderate voters who perceive such language as hyperbolic.

Rather than reaching for historically loaded terms, we can criticize specific policies and behaviors on their merits. This approach is more likely to persuade undecided citizens and maintain the possibility of future political reconciliation. Strong disagreement need not require the language of historical atrocity.

Democracy depends on our ability to distinguish between political opponents and existential enemies. While vigilance against genuine threats to democratic norms is essential, we must be careful not to cry wolf so often that we cannot recognize the real thing when it appears.

Don McConnell, Mendota Heights

I just wanted to thank James Lileks for finding the humor even in the scary things (“What I learned being carjacked,” Strib Voices, July 15). As a fellow carjacking victim, I recognized a lot of my own experience in his — the seemingly innocuous time and place, the immense kindness of strangers, even the idiocy (I, too, fruitlessly held on and was dragged). Of course, experiences like this should never be taken lightly, and I do not envy him the unpredictable and infuriating bouts of PTSD that tend to come with these sorts of things. But his lighthearted take reminds me that camaraderie comes in many, many forms. For my part, I am glad to have it.

Anna Maher, Minneapolis

•••

Thank you to the Star Tribune for bringing a bit more of Lileks’ marvelously funny voice. His whimsical commentaries always brightened my day every Monday when he was a regular columnist for the Strib, and, reading his latest piece, I realized how very much I’ve needed a little laughter these days. Make America smile again, anyone?

Anshel Meir Dols, Maplewood