Counterpoint | Minnesota is a climate leader for its ability to find solutions in compromise

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The authors of the Oct. 24 commentary “Minnesota should reject burning trees and trash for electricity” suggest the current direction of climate action coming out of Washington, D.C., is playing out in Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as it works to implement the state’s carbon-free standard for electricity. But that is far from the truth.

Minnesota is one of the few states making significant progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s because we set ambitious goals and implement them in ways that work for our state.

State Sen. Nick Frentz, chair of the Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate Committee and chief author of the Minnesota law calling for 100% Clean Energy by 2040, said as much in his letter to the PUC: “To successfully pass this law, we brought together utilities, labor groups and environmental advocates who all understand the need for our state to take this transformative step in a way that will actually work for our state’s future. The inclusion of biomass, including waste-to-energy, as an eligible energy technology … was a deliberate choice. … The goal of the 100% Clean Energy law is to move us forward in our fight to mitigate the worst costs of climate change. It’s better for our climate goals to allow waste-to-energy, because the landfill alternative is worse — both from a ratepayer cost standpoint and a carbon emission reduction standpoint.”

If we take a broader view of climate risks beyond just carbon dioxide, the amount of methane reduced by keeping waste out of landfills is significant compared with the amount of carbon created by waste-to-energy facilities. Methane is 28 times more potent in damaging our climate than is carbon dioxide.

We agree with the opinion piece’s authors that state action on clean energy must stay grounded in reality. Recovering energy from wood waste and trash is not about producing electricity, it’s about solving a waste problem responsibly.

We disagree with the authors’ assertion that including trash as renewable energy creates an incentive to keep producing more garbage. Local governments are dedicated to reducing waste and recycling more, despite all the forces driving society to consume more and more.

Transformative policies like the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, which requires all packaging, food packaging and paper products in Minnesota to be refillable, reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2032, is another great example of how Minnesotans excel at finding solutions in compromise. Counties that use a waste-to-energy model were at the forefront of that effort, moving Minnesota forward in reducing the amount of garbage created across the state.

Counties operate waste-to-energy facilities to achieve goals set by the state to manage waste responsibly with the greatest protection for the environment and public health.

Putting hundreds of thousands of tons of waste in landfills across Minnesota every year is not sustainable and risks our climate’s health and expensive cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The goal is not to compete with wind and solar for efficiency. We are all working toward a better future with reduced climate impacts and a healthier environment.

So is recovering energy from wood waste and trash the perfect solution in terms of energy production? No. Is it a good solution to manage the waste created today? Yes, absolutely.

We look forward to being partners with the Sierra Club, CURE, and the Minnesota Environmental Justice Table in advocating for policies that move us toward a shared goal of a circular economy that reduces the thousands of tons of waste that come through our doors every day.