Readers Write: GOP letter to Canada on wildfire management, the new Minnesota flag

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

•••

Interesting that four Republican representatives from Minnesota and two from Wisconsin would send a letter to the Canadian ambassador complaining about wildfire smoke affecting the life of U.S. residents, then criticizing Canada’s forest-management policies. Perhaps these representatives should take a closer look in the United States. There are currently wildfires burning in 12 U.S. states. Additionally, two national parks, Grand Canyon and Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, had to evacuate staff and visitors due to wildfires. What is the stance of these representatives on wildfire management in this country? Do these representatives support abolishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency?

William Johnson, Roseville

•••

Minnesota is choking on wildfire smoke — and no one is talking about where it’s coming from.

It’s not from here. It’s from Canada.

I work outdoors in Willmar. On Sunday, my throat burned by 5:30 p.m. My wife and son had to stay indoors. The skies are hazy, the air is toxic and every summer it’s getting worse — yet our government offers only vague AQI warnings and tells us to limit activity.

If this pollution came through the water, we’d demand action. But because it’s in the air, we shrug. That needs to change.

This is a public health threat, a cross-border environmental issue and a failure of leadership — both diplomatic and environmental.

The media needs to say it clearly: Canada is failing to manage its wildfires, and Minnesotans are paying the price.

Jaime Arredondo, Willmar, Minn.

•••

Four Republican representatives from Minnesota and two from Wisconsin recently published the letter that they sent to the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. asking what Canada was planning to do about the wildfire smoke that makes it hard for us to enjoy our usual summer activities.

If the representatives cared to consult any number of eminent climatologists, forest scientists or northern forest residents about the sources, they would learn that they are smelling more than Canadian smoke. They are smelling the future.

M.C. Gilbert, Lanesboro, Minn.

The writer is a semiretired forestry consultant.

•••

I’ve usually experienced friendliness whenever I’ve interacted with Americans. However, as a Canadian, it’s becoming easy to believe that Americans generally dislike Canada.

For months, Canadians have been subjected to punishing tariffs by your president, in blatant contravention of the free trade deal he previously signed. He’s also regularly threatened Canada with annexation. Throughout, I’ve watched with dismay as most members of the U.S. Congress did nothing to inhibit his actions.

The recent letter by congressmen from Minnesota and Wisconsin added evidence that we’re disliked. Their letter to the Canadian ambassador implicitly blames Canadians for border-crossing wildfire smoke. That’s appalling for a few reasons. First, extinguishing any except the tiniest wildfires is almost impossible. Additionally, they completely ignored that the wildfires burning our forests exist because of drought conditions caused by climate change and because of the lightning that ignited the vast majority of them. They also conveniently ignored the fact the U.S. produces substantially more of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change than almost all other countries. It seems more rational to blame American politicians and their policies for our wildfires and the smoke you’re having to endure.

If most Americans do dislike Canada, I anticipate your representatives’ unjustified behavior won’t change. If that dislike isn’t real, I can at least hope Americans will stop electing politicians who treat neighbors, friends and the climate so badly.

Calvin Brown, Rural Municipality of St. Andrews, Manitoba, Canada

•••

Republican members of Congress from Minnesota and Wisconsin are grossly misguided in blaming Canadians for the recent wildfire smoke blanketing Minnesota and Wisconsin. The real cause is climate change. Higher temperatures combined with reduced snowpack have contributed to more combustible fuels and a longer fire season, dramatically increasing the extent of Canadian wildfires. For example, in 2023, the area burned in Canada was seven times the long-term average and set records in multiple Canadian provinces and territories. Suggesting that better forest management could effectively counter these effects of climate change is ludicrous. Most of Canada’s wildfires occur in remote areas of the vast boreal forest, far from firefighting infrastructure. Ironically, these same lawmakers voted for the president’s Big Beautiful Bill, which rolls back Biden-area tax incentives for green energy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels that are causing climate change.

Since 1750, the United States has contributed about 24% of the cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry, while Canada has contributed about 2%. These lawmakers should be taking real actions to solve the problems of climate change and Canadian wildfire smoke here at home.

Sarah Hobbie, St. Paul

•••

Reps. Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach, Pete Stauber and Brad Finstad, why are you embarrassing us? Our next-door neighbors in Manitoba are losing their homes and lives to forests fires and you are scolding them because the smoke comes our way on prevailing winds. We have contributed to the climate change that’s driving the mismatch between vegetation and longer fire seasons in Canada. Maybe air quality alerts make it harder for Republicans to deny climate change?

I have donated to the Canadian Red Cross’ Manitoba fire relief and encourage my fellow Minnesotans to consider a donation, too. Let’s show our neighbors that some folks in our neck of the woods have a heart.

Diane Rosenwald, Plymouth

There are specific design guidelines established for flag designs by those who study such things. These guidelines are not arbitrary but derived from centuries of experience as to what works and what doesn’t. Minnesota’s previous flag failed in all aspects. The new flag is considered A-plus (“We need a do-over to pick a new state flag,” Strib Voices, July 14).

The primary purpose of a flag is to signal or identify at a distance, not provide a history lesson. The previous flag was indistinguishable from those of 20 other states that had similar “seal on bedsheet” designs. Now Andy Brehm, exhibiting that he knows nothing about good design, expresses his choice to return to a blue banner with some unidentifiable blob in the middle. Flags are for the people; seals are for the government and don’t belong on flags.

The Emblems Redesign Commission was nonpartisan, representative of a wide variety of constituencies and had expert design advisers. More than 20,000 interested Minnesotans chose to respond to well-publicized solicitations to participate. Several million uninterested others chose not to. Brehm presumes to unify us by establishing design commissions ironically chosen in part by political party. There is no good Republican design nor good Democrat design; there is just good design. The complex process he proposes for his do-over is doomed to failure with duplicative inter-regional rival efforts and misguided legislative intervention, which always mucks up things like this. Too many cooks.

When Canada was choosing its new flag in 1965, there was significant opposition for a long time. Now you would be hard put to find Canadians who don’t love their maple leaf. Change can be hard and take time for adjustment. Under the surface, opposition is mostly partisan and political, not really based on design. Give it five to 10 years of cool-down time; everyone will either love it or not give a whit, as before.

Dennis Fazio, Minneapolis

The writer is a member of the North American Vexillological Association.

•••

I hate to break it to Brehm, but there is no new state flag design that will please the folks who are so fiercely clinging to the old one. It’s the very act of changing the flag that they object to — because they consider it “woke,” that handy word that can mean whatever the MAGA crowd wants it to mean on any given day.

Some of these folks objected to the new flag design because, they insisted, it was based on the flag of Somalia (note: it was not). The new flag was designed by a white guy living in rural Minnesota. If you are going to get outraged over a piece of fabric with two shades of blue, a star and a shape that looks vaguely like the outline of our state, there is nothing you won’t figure out a reason to object to.

Anne Hamre, Roseville