[image_credit]REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann[/image_credit]
How did we get here? In 2019, while the federal administration attacked states’ authority to protect residents from car and truck pollution in an unprecedented move, Gov. Tim Walz took action to safeguard Minnesota’s right by signaling it would move forward with stronger tailpipe pollution standards.
Walz announced that Minnesota would join a growing list of states and territories to adopt standards that require new cars sold in the state to emit less pollution and that an increasing percentage of new cars sold in the state be zero-emission vehicles. The clean car standards already protect the environment and public health of more than 118 million people, upwards of 40 percent of the U.S. population. Walz’s announcement signaled that Minnesota, along with other states like Virginia, New Mexico, and Nevada, were poised to choose progress when the federal government was throwing some of the nation’s strongest clean transportation and climate policies in reverse.
Adoption of Clean Cars Minnesota is close
Now in 2021, we’re at the phase where the program’s adoption is close. During two days of virtual testimony and all throughout an open public comment period, tens of thousands of people expressed their support for Clean Cars Minnesota for health, economic, environmental, and consumer reasons.
[image_caption]Margaret Levin[/image_caption]
Cars and trucks on Minnesota roads are the largest source of climate pollution in our state and nationally, and a significant source of dangerous air pollution. Current estimates suggest that Clean Cars Minnesota will eliminate 1 million tons of climate emissions annually by 2030 and help put the state on track to meet its emissions reduction goals. It would do this by expanding consumer choice, allowing residents to purchase clean vehicles that are right for them, including some of the newly announced electric trucks headed to the market.
Report card grading Walz finds his actions fall short
While Minnesota becoming a clean car state is significant, there is much more work to be done for the state to truly act on climate, save lives, and address intersecting crises. Recently, the Sierra Club joined a coalition of Minnesota environmental, worker, Indigenous and progressive groups in releasing a mid-term climate report card grading Walz on his actions to ensure a sustainable and equitable future for Minnesota. Unfortunately, the report card found that Walz’s actions fall short of the bold and decisive measures needed to respond to the climate crisis. For efforts to electrify our transportation system, Walz got a “C.” Funding for transit? An “F.”
Walz should also prioritize significant investments in public transit and making getting around without a car in urban areas safer and easier, steps which will pull his leadership up to a “straight A” when it comes to transportation and a variety of other priorities.
Minnesota should join the ranks of 15 states across the nation and Washington, D.C., in becoming a clean car state. It’s a significant step with major benefits. And there’s a whole lot more to be done to build a vibrant and healthy state where Minnesotans of all classes, races, histories, and identities grow and thrive together.
Margaret Levin is the director of the Minnesota Chapter of the Sierra Club.
As a lifelong Progressive Democrat, this report card really makes me angry. It is just more of the shortsighted reactions of some of the Far Left Bernie Sanders people. Keep attacking Tim Walz and we will end up with some rightwing GOP climate denier as Governor.
Also I think we need to have an in depth discussion about expansion of the electrical power grid that is a big part of the Green New Deal. How many more high voltage transmission lines and where are they going to be located and how muh public participation be allowed? And equally important how much embedded energy is going to be used in developing these high voltage lines?
Wait – that’s a solution for metro drivers and short commutes, even though it is -20 degrees below zero. It is not a solution for those living elsewhere – batteries lose 50% of their energy during cold weather, exactly the time when there’s more driving friction due to snow and the cold air. On top of that, the passenger cabin needs heat at this exact worst time for energy drain.
It’s easy to post wishful thinking without thinking about the necessary implementation of cleaner energy use. One-size-fits-all won’t cut it, at least in the near term.
– Retired Mechanical Engineer w/32 years in the powertrain industry.
I think that same problem you lay out for battery storage is also going to significantly affect Minnesota as we try to switch over our electrical generation from the current reliable mix of nuclear/fossil fuels/renewables to all renewables. The renewables are unfortunately 100% unreliable and a large amount of battery storage is going to be required. The current technology on battery storage has only seen sites where the weather is more optimal. If we need to build battery storage in Minnesota, I fear what the outcome is going to be. The battery farms will likely not deliver the performance that was promised by the advocates of 100% renewables.
Let’s not let facts get in the way of taking down Capitalism and a representative republics. What we need are more government fiats irrespective of what technology can provide. Next, you’ll start discussing how this will have almost zero impact on climate change over the next 100 years. The important thing is it will make people feel better AND destroy our economy while China ascends to world domination.
Cory, I don’t think addressing climate change is about taking down Capitalism. We have what economists call a mixed economy of public and private sector activity in this country and throughout the World and I think it will stay that way far longer than most of us will live. And in that framework we can dramatically address climate change.
My concern is that many of the specific proposals to address climate change, like dramatically expanding the electrical grid, have not been and will not be thought through very well. The unquestioned emphasis on expanding the grid reminds me of the push to develop ethanol 30-40 years ago. Ethanol is an environmental and economic disaster. If we would have taken a fraction of the public money we spent on ethanol and spent it on developing fuel efficient cars and getting old cars off the road we would had a much greater impact on emission reductions. It would have been better for water quality and soil erosion and for the farm economy.
We need to be talking more about using less energy per person and rewarding those who do that.
Thanks to MinnPost for publishing this provocative commentary. The climate crisis is the worst existential crisis that humanity has ever faced. We need to support Gov. Walz’s steps in the right direction while keeping up pressure to take them to a higher level. And, to claim that responding to the climate crisis will empower China is a huge distortion, and not a helpful contribution to this crucial discussion.
Amazingly enough, the sun did in fact come up this morning, and my solar panels are producing. 100 percent reliably, thank you very much. I must admit, I’m amazed every time it happens, but so far, the track record is perfect.
Shifting to 100 percent electric cars requires about a 50 percent increase in electric transmission over today’s levels. Where, oh where, will we ever run those power lines? Probably exactly where we run the ones we already have, since we only need a 50 percent increase over today’s transmission. Another Luddite nothing-burger.
That 50 percent decline in battery power in the cold? Doesn’t happen. Fake news. But I’d be throwing as much cold water if I could if I worked as a power-train engineer, however. That’s kind of like being an expert in draft-horse breeding. Budweiser still needs 1, but, along with drive-train engineer, that’s a job I hope nobody else is in school for in 2021.
Electric cars are awesome. I’ll never own an ICE again. They’re expensive, smelly, unreasonably noisy, inefficient, unreliable, lousy to drive, and too environmentally damaging to be considered a reasonable technology in this modern age. Good-bye and good riddance to them.
Many people- especially a lot of younger people who are advocating for big dramatic action on Climate Change like the Sunrise Movement-don’t understand that we are going to be facing some difficult trade-offs, like more high-voltage transmission lines destroying scenic vistas.
Some climate change advocates are talking about converting most home energy use to electricity. Do these people have even a slight clue what that would involve? Probably 99% of suburban residential development in this country in the last 30 years have all the homes heated with natural gas. It is just mind-boggling think what the electrical demand would be to convert even 25% of these homes to electrical heat.
We need many more people engaged in the climate change discussion and policy development who actually know something, not just people who go to conferences and spend their time on twitter and facebook telling everybody else what needs to be done to deal with climate change.
Having more choices of electric vehicles is a great idea. There are many models of 100% electric or plug-in hybrid cars, SUV’s and trucks on the market. Let’s bring all of them to Minnesota dealerships. This way everyone can find a plug-in vehicle that fits there lifestyle. I bought a used Chevy Volt 7 years ago. My 7 year average fuel economy is 155 MPG. I have saved about $9000 in fuel costs compared to my old car. I charge my car at night when energy demand on the grid is low. Less oil means, less oil pipelines, less oil trains, less oil spills, less pollution, less foreign oil, and less stress on our military. Let’s move our nation forward in a positive manner.