CC/Flickr/Paw Paw
The ragweed pollen season has increased by over two weeks in the past 15 years, causing plenty of discomfort to those with allergies.

Climate change is happening in Minnesota, and the visible effects are becoming more and more apparent in the health and well-being of our family, friends and neighbors.

Robert Moffitt

We see evidence of climate disruption every day, right in our own backyard. The ragweed pollen season has increased by over two weeks in the past 15 years, causing plenty of discomfort to those with allergies. Extreme weather events and changes to the growing seasons threaten our state’s agricultural base and electrical systems. The increasing number and intensity of floods and droughts cause physical injuries and damage homes, property, and businesses. Warmer summers paired with milder winters have allowed disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks to survive longer and spread further north, resulting in a growing number of cases of infections like Lyme disease and West Nile virus.

There is something we can do about it.

Human activity is overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other climate-altering emissions, steadily driving up the planet’s temperature and creating significant and harmful impacts on our health and environment. Electricity production accounts for more than one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the majority from which come from coal-fired power plants. In contrast, renewable energy sources produce electricity with little to no greenhouse gas emissions.

A sound path forward

A recent joint study from Harvard and Syracuse University researchers published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change found that we will achieve the greatest clean air and health benefits with a combination of stringent targets for carbon dioxide emissions while promoting demand-side energy efficiency and clean energy sources. This is precisely the path that Minnesota is on, and one we can’t afford to veer away from.

[cms_ad]

Minnesota has long been a leader in investing in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy sources. It’s not only been a driver of healthier communities, but also of healthier economies. We have one of the strongest clean energy economies in the nation. If we maximize our clean energy production potential in Minnesota, we could provide more than 35,000 jobs and more than $2 billion in wages and benefits, according to a report from A Renewable America. That’s a lot of jobs providing family-supporting wages and health benefits.

Legislative roadblocks

But we are now at a crossroads, where some are questioning our path and suggesting changes to our state’s energy policies that could disregard proven, existing programs in the fight to control climate change. For example, pending legislation would end our energy savings program that has saved more than $6 billion dollars and, according to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, employed nearly 10,000 Minnesotans in 2014. Proposed legislative roadblocks could also undermine opportunities from the creation of a state-developed Clean Power Plan that best meets our energy needs while meeting the new guidelines expected from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Our state has one of the strongest clean energy economies in the nation, as well of one of the healthiest economies for growth and jobs. We also have a passion for the outdoors, for clean air, and clean energy.

Our choice is simple, really.

We must support the expansion of renewable energy, efficiency standards, and flexible solutions to air pollution and climate change as we go into the next phase of our energy system. We have the people, the resources and the talent to make this happen.

This is a great state to live in. Let’s keep it that way.

Robert Moffitt is the communications director for the American Lung Association in Minnesota.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, email Susan Albright at salbright@minnpost.com.) 

Join the Conversation

61 Comments

  1. weather events

    “We see evidence of climate disruption every day, right in our own backyard. The ragweed pollen season has increased by over two weeks in the past 15 years, causing plenty of discomfort to those with allergies. Extreme weather events and changes to the growing seasons threaten our state’s agricultural base and electrical systems. The increasing number and intensity of floods and droughts cause physical injuries and damage homes, property, and businesses. Warmer summers paired with milder winters have allowed disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks to survive longer and spread further north, resulting in a growing number of cases of infections like Lyme disease and West Nile virus.”

    I don’t think I can agree with you on weather events as being caused by global warming. Many times we hear of the increase in storms (specifically hurricanes) being caused by this but the lack of hurricanes to hit U.S. coastlines in the past 10 years is considered dumb luck. That type of thinking and reasoning isn’t logical at all. If the lack of storms (hurricanes specifically) is dumb luck then the increase of them is also dumb luck.

    1. It is always perilous to confuse climate change with weather…

      …on that we agree. You are wise to remind us of the difference.

      You’ll note that I said “evidence of climate disruption,” not proof. We certainly are seeing some strange things in Minnesota’s weather, and these patterns and the northward spread of plants and animals previously rare here has been well documented by scientists.

      Still, we have little to lose and much to gain by continuing on the path to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.

      1. Your assertions

        Everything causes global warming, and global warming causes everything. Convenient tool to get anything done you want done.

        ‘Nothing to lose…much to gain’ Not so. Nothing to lose but our standard of living and our competitive position in the global economy. Raise the cost of energy…send all our jobs in energy-intensive industries to other places (probably much dirtier to boot). I suspect this does not matter to you, but it DOES matter to those people who support their families that way.

        As far as ‘green energy job creation is concerned, I would remind you that we could employ 35,000 people this year digging holes…and then employ them next year to fill them up. But nothing of economic value will be created. And that is the key. It is not the jobs–it’s the PRODUCTION that matters. And green energy simply produces a LOT less output per unit of input than other energy sources.

        We don’t create wealth, improve standards of living, or HELP THE POOR for that matter, by using government to force people to pay more to get less.

        1. exactly

          “Everything causes global warming, and global warming causes everything. Convenient tool to get anything done you want done.”

          This is exactly my point.

  2. You have to consider the entire globe

    Have there been more and more powerful tropical storms across the entire globe as compared to averages? The fact that few have hit the U.S. probably IS dumb luck. Especially considering how other parts of the world have been impacted severely by numerous powerful tropical storms.

  3. This piece is disgraceful

    Minnesota has done some things right, but the big push in the state now is for forest incineration (“biomass power”) and more ethanol. “Biomass” emits more health-damaging air pollutants per unit of electricity generated than any other electricity source except perhaps garbage incineration. Likewise, ethanol has been a huge cause of air quality problems, groundwater depletion, and carbon emissions at least those of fossil hydrocarbon fuels.

    Calling this “clean energy” is a terrible fraud and lie.

    For years Lung in MN and WI has been a shameless and shameful promoter of corn ethanol as a motor fuel. I can envision no reason for this other than being in the pay of ethanol interests.

    Now, the “enviro” and energy wonk establishment in Minnesota is promoting huge increases in ethanol and biomass. Not the least shameful aspect of this is promoting “biomass heat” for schools, hospitals, nursing homes …. exposing the most vulnerable segments of our population–as one supposes Lung knows about–to proximate sources of increased health-damaging air pollutants.

    Of course, there are good reasons to seek increases in (properly-sited) wind, solar, storage, and efficiency, and there are ample opportunities in Minnesota to do this.

    It is hard to write calmly about this.

  4. Reliable?

    I would say that relying on reports from “Renewable America” to figure out how many jobs and money will be created by clean energy production is not wise – those guys clearly have an agenda based on their name.

  5. Hurricanes

    Focusing just on hurricanes ignores all the other disruptions in weather patterns across the globe. That’s like pointing out that your basement isn’t full of water and declaring there isn’t a flood while all your neighbor’s basements are flooded out. “MY basement is just fine, therefor there isn’t an issue.”

    While no one weather event can individually be attributed to global warming, there is certainly a growing body of adverse weather effects in Minnesota, across the nation, and the entire planet. That big picture view is not encouraging.

  6. We must act now and boldly

    We have dithered far too long, just as the Merchants of Doubt have intended. $500 million was spent to create this deadly delay and continued coal/oil profits.

    We have dismissed our greatest, most qualified experts and thought the armchair scientists were of equal merit. Good thing we didn’t do that with Ebola or when we went for medical treatment!

    The debate among qualified climate scientists has been over for decades. We ignore them to our peril

    1. Is Al Gore considered

      an armchair scientist or a qualified climate scientist? Just curious, since he and I have the same education.

  7. Selling pseudo-science is a tough gig, but y’all have the right man for the job.

    1. Mr. Swift,

      the science overwhelmingly supports Mr. Moffit’s contentions.

      In the field of “pseudo-science” you have proven to be an outstanding contributor. As long as there are people around to point out when pseudo-science is being spouted, it will be a tough gig, hopefully.

      1. For every datapoint you could cite to “prove” AGW I could provide a cite just as credible to debunk it.

        But I don’t even need to expend that much energy. All I have to do is ask you to provide one published, reproducible experiment to warrant your argument.

        You can’t, because the whole pseudo-science of AGW is built on computer models that have failed time and again, and for anyone that respects the scientific method that says game over.

        1. Here you go, Mr. Swift, have at it

          The Discovery of Global Warming February 2015
          Bibliography

          This bibliography may seem long (more than 2500 items), but it has a great many omissions. Please see the discussion of sources. Note in particular that the IPCC reports have by far the most complete bibliography for recent scientific work. There is a bibliography by year through 2001. A short list of historical works is here.

          Abbreviations used in the notes in the essays:
          AIP: Niels Bohr Library at the American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD
          LDEO: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY
          SIO: Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives, La Jolla, CA

          link: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

          I also highly recommend that you spend some time educating yourself on this American Institute of Physics site.

          Start with: A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
          link: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

            1. No

              You are not linking to a “peer reviewed” report. You are linking to a site maintained by an Australian “skeptic” group that campaigns against that country’s carbon tax.

              Do you even know what the term “peer reviewed” means?

          1. Well now you did; awkward. Skeptical science is a well known circus of absurd warming rants. And I have no idea what movies you have in your head, but I never cited a movie review.

  8. So AGW is pseudo-science now?

    And the reason is that it is built on computer models that have failed time and time again?

    As I said in another comment, not so fast.

    First you will have to work pretty hard to match me data point for data point. In fact, this is impossible. As you are aware the vast majority of scientific research on the subject is in opposition to your position:

    “See that black sliver? That represents the percentage of scientists who have concluded that climate change is not man made, or is not happening at all, over the last two years. That is approximately 0.01 percent of working climate scientists. The data comes from a new survey from National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell, the man who previously discovered that 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers support the theory that climate change is caused by human activity.”

    Now just 0,01 Percent of Scientists Reject Global warming
    link: http://bit.ly/1d2r3ku

    also,

    “Nov 2012 through Dec 2013: 2258 peer-reviewed climate article by 9136 authors, 1 author rejected man-made global warming.”

    Good luck …

      1. Hilarious, Swift

        look at Taylor’s bio in your ref.

        “I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute”

        You are really getting desperate.

        The Heartland Institute and Climate Science Denial

        “The New York Times has called Heartland “The primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.” Heartland pushes climate denial by attacking legitimate climate scientists, paying professional shills, and publishing misleading psuedo-scientific materials. Fighting climate legislation has become a central priority for their organization over the last decade, according to fundraising documents.”

        link: http://bit.ly/1GaHHOP

        Carry on …

      2. Laughable

        Apparently you didn’t read the survey cited in the Forbes article (Forbes magazine being, of course, a journal with no agenda whatever, no, sir). The survey was of experts in geoscientists who are experts in the petroleum industry. They were not climatologists.

        It’s a credible and convincing survey, only if the words “credible” and “convincing” are given radically different new meanings.

    2. Peer Reviewed, Mr. Swift?

      Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

      link: DESMOG
      CLEARING THE PR POLLUTION THAT CLOUDS CLIMATE SCIENCE
      http://bit.ly/1dUClbE

      I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.

  10. Heat-trapping gases trap heat

    Basic chemistry and physics. Been established for nearly two centuries now.

    Very, very silly to deny it.

  11. Science and not science

    Mr. Willemssen, heat-trapping gases trap heat (that is why they are called that way) – so yes, that is science. Burning fossil fuel create those gases – that is also science. Earth heats up – probably somewhat science. Earth heats up just because of mankind created heat-trapping gases – less science. Local hurricanes and droughts are the result of Earth’s heating up – very questionable science. If we do not stop using coal and oil now, in a hundred years we will all die of floods and heat waves – not science at all.

  12. Denying science because of ideology

    Sad, but predictable.

    If the concentration of heat-trapping gases in a closed system increase, then given long-term constant external heat input, the temperature of the closed system will increase. A child could demonstrate that with some CO2, tupperware, some water, and a couple of heat lamps.

    It’s laughable to see people fight against something so easily demonstrable just because they’re conditioned with paranoid fears about “loss of freedom” or some other nonsense.

    1. Your right, Jay. A child could probably do that little experiment.

      The same child would probably see the difference between a Tupperware bowl experiment and the infinite complexity of the world’s weather systems.

    2. Sad indeed

      Mr. Willemssen, it is indeed sad when people are ready to ignore reason for ideology and believe any nonsense they are told… So just ask a scientist how much a closed bowl resembles the Earth. If everything is so simple, how come lately the temperature climb slowed down or stopped? Maybe, just maybe, there are some other forces in play here (and I do not mean God)? Is Gore more important than logic?

      1. “…how come lately the

        “…how come lately the temperature climb slowed down or stopped?”

        It hasn’t

          2. It Has Not

            From the article Mr. Gutman posted:

            “According to Pachauri, temperature records since 1850 “show there are fluctuations. They are 10, 15 years in duration. But the trend is unmistakable.”

            The IPCC has consistently said that fluctuations in the weather, perhaps caused by variations in sunspots or a La Nina cooling of the Pacific, can mask any warming trend and the panel has never predicted a year-by-year rise in temperatures.”

            Here is a more comprehensive view.

            http://www.csicop.org/si/show/has_global_warming_stopped/

            If you just look at the climate fluctuations in the short view (graph #3), it appears global warming has taken a bit of a break. If, however, you look at a longer term view, say 30+ years, you’ll see that the trend is unbroken (graph #2).

            Mr. Huntley is correct in this instance.

            1. Let’s check them

              OK, let’s look at these links (except the Guardian one – which is just a propaganda piece).

              The Accuweather: the first chart clearly shows that 5 year running mean is not increasing at the end of the chart.

              SCI: the piecemeal chart does show the slowdown in the last ten –fifteen years or so and it is acknowledged in the article. But a straight line visualization as a simplification and I would guess that a better approximation would be a curve with a reduced derivative at the end (and derivative is showing the rate of change). Interestingly, this piece also emphasizes that weather is not climate meaning that connecting hurricanes and heat waves with climate changes is unscientific.

              IFL: “Since 2000, the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 0.06° C; a fraction of what was predicted by the IPCC during the 1990s.” The authors said that “… this century’s slight increase in surface temperature, which deniers are labeling as a “pause,” is actually due to natural climate fluctuations.” So apparently natural climate fluctuations may supersede the global warming…

              But I just want to clarify may position a little bit. If one reads my initial post, they would notice where I drew a line between science and not science. And climate science, unlike physics or chemistry, cannot predict what will happen in the future with any reasonable degree of certainty…

              1. You are missing the point of ALL of those articles. The warming has not stopped. No, natural climate fluctuations do NOT supersede the warming that is going on. All they do is demonstrate that looking at a small window of time can obscure the clear trend. When current WEATHER is taken into account the models match up. The heat is going into the ocean

                1. 15 is 1/3 of 45

                  Mr. Huntley, warming has been slow for the last 15 years… which is not a “small window of time” compared to the entire span of 45 years as the charts show (before 1970 there was not really much of an emission…) And sure, there are always excuses when the reality does not correspond to theory. Why didn’t heat go to the oceans before the year 2000 and after that it started going into the oceans? And we all know that hurricanes are the result of warm water, so come we have so little hurricane activity lately? Anyway, all I am asking is for natural skepticism in each person to wake up… authorities are not always right.

  13. Thanks Mr Moffitt

    Yet another reasoned and easily understood essay on the environmental predicament we are confronted with. And almost like literary magic the swift pounce of those challenged by the science provides an clean, easy to understand reactionary example of why we are in this predicament. A twofer so to speak. History will be the true test of genius.

  14. An inconvenient truth.

    Science is an ever flexible ever changing approach to an idea. If something is a law and new evidence comes up to prove that wrong. It is no longer law until which time the new evidence may or may not justify the ability to be determined law.

    Thing about a law is that it takes 100% consensus to become a law. Keep in mind i am not trying to attack anyone. But you people seem to be ganging up on Mr. Swift who seems to be handling himself just fine. But i have a significant point here that i hope will flatten all of your logic and change your outlook and the way your movement understands thing. That is if you can demonstrate an ability to understand my Scientific Approach. Now please keep in mind you can have an argument all day long and find plenty of information to back up whatever your predetermined idea about things is. You’ll find what you want to find. Hopefully I don’t get overly passionate as i go on.
    The story on this subject has constantly changed since i can remember hearing it the first time the difference between the science of how i look at it and the personal agenda and feelings all of you look at it. Well partially it is this. It doesn’t seem like any of the people on your side have much of a self awareness about anything that has to do with troubleshooting. I can offer my proof all day long and continuosly knock down your argument with personal experience on any subject you want to go after. Heck with a bit of time for thought and reflection i may even be able to defeat you in a battle to see who knows more things that aren’t true. We need action now. EH? who is your targeted interest today? No you don’t have one? Wow. See the thing is your likeminded people the Democrats that you vote for would have got things done a long time ago on this if it were fact. The republicans would have beaten them to it if it were fact.
    So here is the part where i get real on you. All this action you are going to take on things of the environmental nature republicans already beat you to. I mean the good parts of it. Increasing efficiency and repurposing things that are useful. I am certain within your households throwing money at things works for you, what works for me is fixing things myself building my own things when possible. Doing as much as possible together with my family right at home. Not wasting a bunch of time and travel by being inneficient. By this way I know how things really work. And i have to take no one else’s word for things. Which means no person influencing my decisions is in someway distorting things for their benefit or to cover up their errors.
    I was raised and influenced by very frugal people my family comes from both sides of the aisle. None of us was ever wasteful of anything that could be useful. even showering together when i was growing up. My grandma raised 4 kids by herself working in the kitchen at a hospital and was self made to a bit of wealth in the process. She also lived through the great depression. This gave them a sensibiliy none of you ever had to have. You have people like me that make things happen for you because of your lives of privilege. Left to yourselves you’d be finished.
    My point is pretty much every action that has been forced on the populous by the collective has only increased pollution and waste. I am not going to get citations i will name some things and try not to get to passionate about it or detail. I am going to show faith in you by listing some things that have pet peeved me since the start that only make things worse much worse. down to a local level destroying our lives and our ability to do things the more efficient less wasteful, better way. That serves no corporate interest and brings the community closer.
    What i will do is try to go brief and not too far back. just far enough to get to the big ones of late. if you look back probably ten years ago, im not going with dates they’re irrelevant, you have computers. The epa forced a new standard for ultra low sulfur diesel fuel which if you understand this the sulfur in diesel fuel provides more horsepower and therefore an increase in efficiency of diesel engines without the sulfur more fuel is consumed per work output. This is nothing other than a tax and has driven every person’s price up. and made it possible for only things like Wal Mart to exist. The rule mandating this fuel also required diesel engine manufacturers to install these overly complex emission cleaning systems on engines after a certain date. These systems require a great deal of maintenance which includes regularly changing the fluid the system uses to catch the contaminants. Another form of pollution. They system also reduces efficiency by increasing weight on the vehicle and requiring additional power for the component to be driven. Much evidence of the same phenomena can be seen when you look at fuel efficiency and power output from cars prior to the enactment of ever increasing emission standards. The systems needed in order to meet the emission standards ever decreasing the efficiency of the vehicle and adding weight as well. Even though the cars of the era prior to emissions were big giant boats with big giant hulking motors. The newer smaller vehicles now needing heavier and heavier usually less efficient systems to keep to the standards. The edge of the dagger is two fold as everything we consume in our daily lives has been brought to us by use of a fuel of some sort. The cost and energy required to process these fuels to basically remove a beneficial component is redundancy at its purest form. So now we have smaller heavier vehicles to fill our needs but they do not. So then we take two vehicles to have enough space. These rules and the we know what’s best for you, mentality has only made things worse but won’t be revealed by any within your loud mouth group where it is in someones interest for the bickering and further dependency on the larger entity, to continue to fuel the agenda they are pushing which is backed up by lies and good intentions. But no evidence to the positive, unless indicators of reasonable scientific approach can be determined ahead of delivery to the recipient and prespun for the simple amongst us to look like something good or to use the talking points to disarm the opposition. It is a racket of epic proportions and you all wonder why the devil is taking over. You have failed on your attempts to force the populous to stop smoking you have failed on everything. My argument continues.
    Your foolish wasteful policies and the elimination by your majority of the protections for the minority are the reasons corporations move overseas. We still need things and when we build we need those materials. So because of your tactics and the unfriendly environment your constituencies cause on the individual. Things that could be done here are now done a few states away from Minnesota. ie Magnetation steel plant built in indiana since you all are so ridiculous. Which only increases the pollution. Now don’t get me started on garbage handling and all the other crimes against free people your kind has brought to bear on us, the able willing and knowledgeable. Regardless of the good you think it does these things are all the opposite and we can handle ourselves here. We produce the ore from the ground to pellets. ship it to china, europe and other eastern nations. They use the ore to make substandard steel to then build substandard machinery which they then send back here at which time we are tasked to build and erect this equipment and connect to infrastructure using other substandard components and hardware which is not made here either. The equipment requires us to build and locate with extreme precision by our high standard as well as the standard the manufacturer requires for long life and efficiency. A standard that cannot be achieved due to their innacurate and incorrect production methods, many times creating dangerous potential failures. No equipment produced in usa would ever leave the place of production in this poor condition. Then we are forced to live with it. And we incur the costs of additional inspection and the burden of proof to the manufacturer companies often headed and managed by persons from groups that have americas destruction as their key interest. This process also incurs a cost of additional downtime and further expense. Often without satisfaction to the customer. This whole process completely stifles our ability to use our ingenuity and work ethic as an advantage and cripples all the good things that could result. I could go on and on and not reach the end or ever have gotten through to any of you. But understand what i say is true because i am there, i build it, i live it, i question everything and i wish i was wrong about it. Tragically i am not and the power is yours by your own majority to right these atrocities. No one wants to destroy our world so let go of the fallacy. Forgive my grammar and lack of appropriate punctuation capitalization and layout preparation. I have done this impromtu without looking back far. And i have things i need to do. Let’s get away from our computers and out with our neighbors. Find the solutions and make amends for the damage. Do something about it. At least do your due diligence and believe in the goodness of your fellow Minnesotans. You push we push back understand the most basic law of physics for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This holds true universally. Not just for motion. You force us to stop smoking we smoke more to show you. I could’ve quit already but you just keep pushing. The scientifically sought facts prove you are losing that battle. Learn to be kind and save your labels for yourselves. If you came to our home we would treat you like family. Were more alike than different search yourself for the answers. Remember the Golden Rule and spread it’s message to all. Lot’s of run on sentences in there eh? what a caveman i am?

    1. A fine defense indeed

      This is the logic that can explain many things indeed, Mr Swift included as you point out Andrew. Keep smoking, it will help us all in the long run.

Leave a comment