Readers Write: Sustainable aviation fuel, George Floyd, mining near the Boundary Waters

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

•••

It’s reasonable to approach sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) with skepticism (“Is sustainable aviation fuel plan an example of public-private-nonprofit greenwashing?” Strib Voices, May 17). As a river organization, we have questions about what this inevitable transition might mean for our environment.

But skepticism is not an excuse to distort science. Rather, it’s how we guard against the worst outcomes as we pursue the best. Here’s what the science says: If done responsibly, including by prioritizing winter-hardy oilseeds, SAF would not only lower aviation emissions — it would drastically reduce agriculture pollution and give Minnesota cleaner, healthier waters. If not done responsibly? SAF could do more harm than good.

That’s why Friends of the Mississippi River is at the table. We’re doing everything in our power to make sure state and corporate leaders invest in the best options for our climate, water, soil and habitat. Studies show winter-hardy oilseeds have some of the lowest carbon intensity scores of any near-term feedstock. As a cash cover crop, the market can drive long-term adoption rather than relying on expensive subsidies, as traditional cover crops do. Because they share land with summer crops, like corn and soy, we can add millions of acres of these oilseeds without plowing up forests or grasslands.

No other crop feedstock being considered can match these environmental upsides. In my 30-plus years of working to protect the river, SAF may be the most consequential policy pivot point I’ve seen for water quality. We will not compromise our core principles. Responsible choices today could mean a whole lot of good tomorrow, including cleaner water for Minnesota.

Whitney Clark, St. Paul

The writer is executive director of Friends of the Mississippi River.

Five years ago, I set out to write a commentary intending to address the root causes of the murder of George Floyd. Discarded drafts pointed the finger at the usual suspects — police administrations, the police union and inattentive media. The commentary I did submit in July 2020 was entitled “Minneapolis City Officials Must First Look in the Mirror.” Only my local community newspaper chose to publish it. Most published commentaries focused on “white privilege” and “unconscious bias,” not on any specific policy failures.

The debate over policing in Minneapolis has been a never-ending story of news conferences announcing new initiatives and new police chiefs. Like clockwork, the city devises new and different police oversight boards and procedures. Most recently, federal and state oversight was going to be the answer to all our challenges. Three actions would show the mayor and City Council are serious about reform: First, end the practice of coaching as a method to keep sustained violations from public view. Second, provide effective oversight of a transparent, prompt and accountable police discipline system. Finally, end due process violations for failure to disclose cases of police discipline to criminal defendants in violation of due process.

With the imminent dismissal of federal litigation against the Minneapolis Police Department, elected officials can no longer hide behind federal monitors and a federal decree. Responsibility must return to those we elect. After all, is that not the ultimate “consent decree” in a democracy?

Paul Ostrow, Minneapolis

The writer served on the Minneapolis City Council from 1998-2009, and as council president from 2002-2005.

•••

Given the recent remarks of MPD Chief Brian O’Hara, it is evident that Minneapolis still struggles for a pathway forward post-George Floyd. Saying the city has a “very detached, bourgeois liberal mentality” was a diplomatic way of saying the City Council is a dysfunctional cabal looking for victimization throughout the city. As such, the council has become Exhibit A for how not to run a city. After an era of defunding police, the council and the chief are trying to reinvent police work without talking to each other. Gimmicks abound, as witness the latest two civilians hired to address constitutional issues and internal affairs. A variety of civilian violence interrupters compete for grant money as they aspire to play pseudo-cop. While not to disparage good intent, there must be a return to common sense and the delivery of basic services. At its core, the economic and future viability of Minneapolis hinges on the efficient implementation of law enforcement. Few will come to shop, reside or open businesses if the streets are unsafe. O’Hara, Mayor Jacob Frey and the City Council must come together and speak with one voice to return Minneapolis to a safe and viable city. All else is just a veneer that placates agendas and delays what the residents of Minneapolis are waiting for.

Joe Polunc, Waconia

I’m no expert, so I can only respond to Andy Campeau’s counterpoint about responsible copper-sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness by using my common sense and drawing on other things I have read and heard over the years about extractive industries and their toxic effects on our environment (“Counterpoint: What happens when we say no to responsible mining in Minnesota?” May 16). Campeau mentions that, under the high standards set by the state and federal government for a project in the Rainy River Watershed “not a single drop of detectable pollution is allowed to enter the watershed.”

Really? I love it. Except: “not “allowed” by whom? What about the way too numerous times we have heard and read that pollution not allowed to enter the environment, in fact, does? Pipeline ruptures, train derailments, oil spills, inadvertent noxious gas releases, PFAS released into our drinking water, factory farm manure lagoons overtopping their banks ... the list goes on and on. We can and do read articles nearly every week in the Minnesota Star Tribune about inadvertent, unintentional and illegal toxic releases happening near and far. And what about the toxic waste sites all over our country, called Superfund sites, still causing problems decades after they are closed? How many millennia would have to pass before our pristine Boundary Waters would be clear of the toxic aftereffects of copper-sulfide mining in the watershed?

Put me firmly in the camp of “Prove It First!” that you are actually able to open, extract and later close a copper-sulfide mine in our beautiful Boundary Waters (not to mention Canada’s Quetico and Lake Superior and on down the Great Lakes chain) without “a single drop of detectable pollution” entering the watershed. Ever. And then mark me down as extremely skeptical.

Jeanne Norrgard, Bloomington

•••

Campeau writes, “I support mining projects having a chance to prove they can meet [Minnesota environmental] standards. ... But some critics of the industry have for years expressed knee-jerk opposition to mining without ever giving these projects a fair shake.”

I am all for good-paying jobs — even good-paying mining jobs. I agree there is a growing demand for copper and nickel to fuel a “green” economy. Unfortunately, the copper-nickel deposits found in Minnesota are in some of the most fragile and water-rich ecosystems of the state, and Campeau makes his comments in support of mining these minerals as if we have nothing to lose if they fail. We have much to lose. We have the pristine waters and a major tourist economy in the BWCAW to lose. We have safe groundwater to lose in the BWCAW and still other delicate ecosystems in the state such as the lakes and rivers of the Mississippi watershed where this kind of mining is also proposed. After several Google searches I have found zero examples where the mining companies seeking permits to mine here in Minnesota have ever done the kinds of proposed copper-nickel mining safely anywhere in the world. Not only that, but many of these companies’ exploratory test drilling sites have never been capped as required by state law even 10 years later, according to the Tamarack Water Alliance. To neglect to meet even this minimal kind of requirement (capping test wells) does not bode well for their willingness — let alone their ability — to mine safely and responsibly at this time anywhere in the state.

Jerry Friest, Eagan