Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A companion story titled "Failure to act on climate change has already cost billions" could have offered a useful perspective beside Sunday's "Carbon-free future will cost billions" story. As a frame of reference, what has society already spent in reaction to climate change damages? What have been society's costs for cleaning up after increased flooding, more frequent and intense fires, drilling deeper wells for more irrigation, urban and natural forest loss, health care costs related to increased asthma, and the myriad other direct and externalized human and environmental losses and damages? What are projected annual costs for climate change consequences going forward?

Action will cost something — but our societal inaction isn't free.

Melinda Erickson, Roseville

•••

"Minnesota's new clean power mandate poses thorny and expensive challenges" on StarTribune.com was a reasoned and accurate article about the transformational legislation signed into law last week by Gov. Tim Walz. The switch to 100% clean electricity will have wide-ranging impacts and require major investments in new renewable-energy systems and high-voltage transmission lines to access low-cost renewable power from a broad geographic area, blending the variable renewable energy resources from distant locations to provide reliable, clean energy to meet our local power needs. But the reporter points out that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concludes that, considering all of the costs and benefits, switching to clean electricity will likely result in a lower cost of electricity to Minnesota customers. That means to you and me.

John Dunlop, St. Paul

The writer is a retired renewable-energy engineer.

I almost spilled my coconut milk while pouring it over my cereal as the Feb. 11 Star Tribune article "Feedlot fight raises cries of bullying" caught my eye.

That a feedlot dairy operation that seeks to expand to keep "just fewer than 6,000" dairy cows is suing individual Land Stewardship Project members for opposing this intention is very telling. "Get big or get out," to quote former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz.

Beef and dairy feedlot operations are well-documented sources of air contamination and water-quality deterioration and depletion, compounded by the land and water and agrochemical use to produce their feed. This sector of industrial agriculture is recognized as a major contributing factor to climate change and should be immediately phased out with government support.

Michael W. Fox, Golden Valley

I thought I'd give the Sunday piece on Minnesota tax refugees a read since I had not seen one of these in a while ("Minn. taxes forcing some to leave state"). I've read and heard over 45 years' worth of opinion pieces and speeches in the Legislature regarding Minnesota's taxes "forcing" people to move out. So this time I thought maybe I'd see data to indicate how many have departed over any particular time period? No. How about any information on the effect that these departures and loss of economic contribution have on the social and economic well-being of Minnesota? Nope, still nothing.

What the data does show is that Minnesota's overall tax burden (which is more indicative than simple tax rates) is 39th lowest out of 50 (see TaxFoundation.org). Published rankings also show that Minnesota hasn't lost its rather high position on lists for quality of life over multiple criteria in the past 45 years because of that burden.

How many of the author's clients and friends are leaving Minnesota for the low-burden states of Alaska, Wyoming or Tennessee? No, they go to Florida and Texas because they have more warm sun and milder winters, with the side benefit of lower tax burdens.

We're going to need more than anecdotal observation leading to conclusions that fit a personal political worldview to show that Minnesota's taxes are a detriment to our state's economy. We're all pleased for the author's clients and friends who have found lovely new homes elsewhere. But I fail to see how this is newsworthy to the rest of us.

•••

The Feb. 12 Business section has a bad headline problem, not only factually incorrect but also contradicting its accompanying column. The problem with "Minn. taxes forcing some to leave state" is the verb "forcing." Someone forced to do something does it because there's no viable alternative, such as someone trapped in earthquake rubble being forced to drink filthy water as the only way to avoid dying of thirst. That's a far cry from wealthy Minnesotans choosing to leave the state because they don't like paying higher tax rates than those who make less money. The writer of the accompanying column tells us some of his investment-firm clients are "contemplating" leaving the state if a proposed increase in capital-gains taxes becomes law. Likewise, he writes that some "are no longer willing to keep paying" Minnesota taxes. Making that decision is one thing, but it can't accurately be called "forced" to move — not when those contemplating moving have second homes and investment earnings big enough to push them into the higher tax bracket. The Star Tribune should take better care to avoid misleading readers on this politically charged issue.

Steve Schild, Winona, Minn.

"Rural counties need AG expertise" (Feb. 12) was a good editorial about the need for legal reform in the rural areas of our state. But there are other types of reform that should take place in small-town Minnesota.

Nearly 50 years ago I moved to the Twin Cities from a town of about 30,000 because the unemployment rate there was 18%, against a national rate of 7%. It hasn't changed, and other social factors, such as an epidemic of drug addiction, are contributing to the crisis and the frustration of residents.

Frederic J. Anderson, Minneapolis

While U.S. Bank Stadium is ugly, it's not even the ugliest building in Minneapolis ("Oh, the architectural ... notoriety," Readers Write, Feb. 12). The crumpled-tin-foil monstrosity on the University of Minnesota's grounds is easily one on the worst buildings I've ever seen.

Michael Robertson, Stillwater

•••

One cannot judge a book by its cover. U.S. Bank Stadium is amazing inside and out, flooded with natural light, sunshine, great sight lines, proximity to the field, fresh air through front doors if desired and community. I heard the architect's presentation, toured the building design and technology, sat at Sid Hartman's press seat, and attended a game filled with thousands of cheering people. Skol!