Clear choice: clean air, clean water, clean jobs

This morning's Star Tribune has two pieces that, it seems to us, clearly frame Minnesota's future, sort of the way last November 8 framed our present. The parenthetical notes list the section of the paper in which each piece can be found. That, in itself, should give us a clue. Herewith are the pieces in question:

• Growth of green energy sector surges in Minnesota [business]


• Enbridge's Line 3 project is necessary and prudent [commentary]

The commentary reads like an attempt to counter Minnesota's Department of Commerce expert analysis, released early last month, of the proposed pipeline project. (The Commerce Department's mission includes protecting the public interest and serving as a trusted public resource.)

"Oil market analysis indicates that Enbridge has not established a need for the proposed project; the pipeline would primarily benefit areas outside Minnesota; and serious environmental and socioeconomic risks and effects outweigh limited benefits" [emphasis added]

clean air

Photo by J. Harrington

The business story emphasizes how rapidly Minnesota is outgrowing its historic reliance on foreign energy sources, and growing its economy at the same time.

...Minnesota’s clean-energy jobs grew 5.3 percent in 2016 to 57,351 jobs. That compares with all-industry growth of 1.4 percent and 4.2 percent for professional and business services, the fastest-growing of the 11 major industrial sectors tracked by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.

Those claiming the need for and prudence of a replacement pipeline (primarily to serve non-Minnesota interests) claim that it would put "...6,500 Minnesotans to work over two years..." That would be roughly equivalent to two or three years worth of clean energy job growth, many of which would be "permanent" jobs. Which do you think is more sustainable?

clean water

Photo by J. Harrington

If there's a solar spill, we get a sunny day. Oil spills are a whole different story. Enbridge has a history of oil spills at their facilities. (If some argue that clean energy jobs are different than pipeline construction jobs, please talk to Republican legislators about fully funding Minnesota's transportation system and create beneficial construction jobs.)

clean jobs

Photo by J. Harrington

The preceding, we hope, should help reinforce the realization that an alleged choice between jobs or the environment is a false choice. A wise choice is to create a future that protects our environment, reduces health costs by contributing to cleaner air and water, and build a better Minnesota with a New Economy.

                     Statement on Energy Policy

By Carter Revard

It’s true we have invented quark-extraction,

and this allows our aiming gravity at will;

it’s true also that time

can now be made to flow

backward or forward by

the same process. It may be true as well that

what is happening at the focal point,

the meristem of this process,

creates a future kind of space,

a tiny universe that has

quite different rules. In this, it seems,

whatever one may choose to do or be becomes

at once the case. In short,

we have discovered heaven and

it’s in our grasp. However,

the Patent Office has not yet approved and cites

less positive aspects of this invention. First, it

does not generate profit, and

it does make obsolete all present

delivery systems for our nukes. Then,

it will let private citizens do things that only

a chosen few, that is, OUR sort, should be allowed—

fly freely from one country

to any other, spreading diseases

and bankrupting transportation.

Home-heating, auto-making industries will be trashed,

employment shelled, depressions spread worldwide,

sheer anarchy descend.

For these and other reasons,

no one must know of this. . . .

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.