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

•••

In response to Ray Higgins' commentary about Huber pulling out of Minnesota ("Unbalanced regulation leaves northern Minnesota behind," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 21), let me start by saying that there is a lot of money in northeast Minnesota. And a lot of it has come from resource extraction and associated businesses. Higgins needs to remember that public land belongs to all Minnesotans, not just those in northeast Minnesota.

This mill would have consumed 400,000 cords of wood, a monster of a mill. What that would have done was created a monoculture of forests, in particular aspen. Regarding rotation ages, the age that species should be harvested would have to shrink to feed this mill. The results would be far far less diversity in plant and animal life. Our forests are already under siege from ATVs plowing up our forest floors, spreading invasive species, degrading wetlands and threatening quality watersheds. And who has led the charge? Industries and a former Department of Natural Resources trails employee from northeast Minnesota.

The pity party for northeast Minnesota rings hollow. It's not about you and your perceived wrongdoing by the metro area. It's about that part of the state having its way on public lands that belong to all of us. Maybe northeast Minnesota should be more willing to accept that. And that would be a good start of meaningful dialogue.

Daniel Wilm, Pequot Lakes, Minn.

The writer is a retired DNR forester.

In response to the Feb. 20 opinion by Ray Higgins: The Huber mill proposal would have doubled down on contamination in Cohasset, making a convenient exit from liability for the soon-to-close power plant and a plausible excuse for confusing legacy pollution and new pollution from the Huber mill. Who wants to live downwind or downstream? A high-paying job might not offset the high medical bills from living in close quarters with industry. The initial legislative exemption from an environmental-impact statement for this Metrodome-sized project was ludicrous. It would be interesting to know exactly how many closed-door meetings took place to get that deal done, and who the deals were with. This proposal would have made already existing mills in the area struggle to compete since they are not being subsidized to the tune of $80 million like the megamill was on track to be. After watching Enbridge plow Line 3 through, most people in northern Minnesota are tired of seeing the functional ecology (aka tribal resources) disappear. Good riddance to another regulation-shirking company that was ready to empty out what's left of northern Minnesota forests.

Next time you are out for a drive up north, try to find a 50-year age-class of woods and the fauna that is dependent on such. You won't see much. Time to let the now poplar-dominant forests regrow and maybe, just maybe, promote diversity by planting back pine trees and preserving some more areas for becoming old growth forests again.

Mike Tauber, Backus, Minn.

•••

I noticed two different but related commentaries in the Star Tribune this week, "Unbalanced regulation leaves northern Minnesota behind" and "Carbon-free future will save, not cost" (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 22). The first article was written by Ray Higgins of the Minnesota Timber Producers Association, the second article by Annie Levenson-Falk of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota. Biomass Magazine reported on Feb. 7 that the U.S. wood pellet industry exported nearly 9 million metric tons of wood pellets in 2022 with revenue at $1.54 billion (around $171 per ton). Total U.S. pellet production capacity was over 11 million metric tons in 2022. It further reported that there are 107 wood pellet manufacturing plants in the United States, but only one in Minnesota.

Kirk T. Cobb, White Bear Lake

The United States and NATO should provide Ukraine what it needs to defeat Russia's invasion.

I hear from time to time the counterargument: "How can the West afford to support Ukraine?" I would turn that argument on its head. Can the West and the U.S. afford it if Ukraine loses? Can we afford the worldwide destabilization if Russian President Vladimir Putin and his barbaric aggression prevail? Not only would his appetite be whetted for more conquests, but other would-be conquerors around the world would be encouraged to do the same. Appeasement does not work. Nor should we be played like a marionette by Putin's histrionic and farcical nuclear threats. In reality, he has no desire to have his mistress, his daughters and his grandchildren incinerated.

True, we are helping Ukraine, but at the same time the Ukrainians are helping us. They are the ones dying to blunt Putin's expansionism. It is in our national interest, and the entire free world's interest, to support Ukraine as robustly and as expeditiously as possible.

Stanley Arthur Woolner, St. Paul

I'm calling B.S. on the People's Republic of China (Communist China). Since the 1930s, the Chinese have reminded the rest of the world about the Japanese invasion of their country and of all the horror that accompanied it. They were right to do so, and the word "horror" barely scratches the surface of how awful it was. But now, in a very similar situation, they are taking the opposite side, giving aid — and now possibly weapons — to Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. The United States correctly accuses Russia of crimes against humanity during this unprovoked invasion. I don't know whether anyone connected with the Chinese government would ever see something printed in the Star Tribune, but perhaps one or more of our elected representatives could contact them. We must tell them that it is B.S. to claim that for one country to invade another merely to expand its empire was wrong when it happened to them, but it's fine if it happens to anyone else. They were right before; they're wrong now.

David Rosene, Brooklyn Park

The review of snow shovels ("Snow shovels: A field guide," Feb. 22) overlooked the model with the most efficient design. The original, made of metal, is the Yooper Scooper ($173 on Amazon). I prefer the similar but lighter Garant 24 inch Poly Sleigh Shovel ($64.99 at Ace Hardware, made in Canada). It is a slip shovel that accumulates snow and then moves it, not by lifting, but by sliding it along the ground or up a mound of snow with much less effort than lifting. Since purchasing it, I rarely use a standard snow shovel except for cleaning steps. At age 74, I can clear a driveway much faster and with no back strain. In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where this design originated, they have to move a lot of snow.

Les Everett, Falcon Heights

•••