Protecting our air and water isn’t anti-business. It’s pro-Minnesota

Sign up for our emails to get our latest news directly in your inbox

This counterpoint was first published in the Star Tribune on July 30th. It was written in response to former state legislator Pat Garafolo’s op-ed: Minnesota’s slide from NIMBY to BANANA

When you read about “permitting reform” on the opinion pages of the Minnesota Star Tribune and elsewhere, you’ll notice two conflicting arguments.

One is that “Minnesota has the strongest standards in the world, so we should build it here.” We’ve seen this argument on this commentary page many times recently regarding sulfide mining, hyperscale data centers, animal feedlots and more, with proponents arguing 

Minnesota’s regulations alone are enough to protect our water, air and communities from their known risks. The other is “Minnesota’s laws are too strict and keep us from building anything anywhere.” That was basically contributing columnist Pat Garofalo’s most recent argument published in the Star Tribune on July 20th.

When proponents want to convince a skeptical public that a polluting industrial proposal will be just fine, they use the first one. Think about all of the copper-nickel mining supporters trying to justify the recent Congressional action removing protections for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in April. But every year at the state Legislature, they are back with the second one, trying to weaken the very standards they tout when it suits them.

In fact, neither of these declarations is true.

Minnesota does have good laws and rules, but they require enforcement, and political pressure to bypass them is strong. That’s why organizations like MCEA exist, and why courts have had to intervene to uphold the law.

Minnesota’s environmental review and permitting laws are constantly being tested by industry and their backers for gaps and loopholes. That’s because the objective of corporations proposing mines or pipelines or hyperscale data centers here is to maximize their profits. That might mean passing costs on to the public, avoiding responsibility for pollution left behind, and proceeding on their own timeline. In other words, their interests may not fully align with our interests. That’s why Minnesota has environmental laws — to put the public first.

But to Garofalo and others, permitting appears to be a hurdle to overcome. They seem to assume that all investments are equally good, and that the only thing that matters is how quickly we can approve them. Many of the cases he cited in his column are actually examples of how the law and science are supposed to work in the interest of protecting the public and the shared resources we depend on. PolyMet’s sulfide mining permits were overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court because they violated our laws and put our communities and water at risk.

We also can’t permit environmental review of proposals that are so vague that there’s nothing there to study. That’s why MCEA has challenged environmental reviews of massive data centers that don’t even tell the public they are a data center, let alone the amount of electricity and water they might use. A single one of these proposed data centers could use nearly as much electricity as all of the residences in Minnesota combined. Of course Minnesota should take a hard look at the impacts. That’s common sense, not a delay tactic.

Mining proposals like Talon or PolyMet or Twin Metals can leave behind pollution that lasts hundreds of years and would cost the public billions of dollars to clean up in places where thousands of Minnesotans depend on clean water. In fact, this industry has an unbroken record of water pollution, and a long history of leaving the mess to the public to pay for. Of course Minnesota should scrutinize these proposals. Again, that’s common sense.

Even more cynically, pro-industry advocates try to bundle clean energy, transmission and housing into their permitting narrative. And while each of these has environmental impacts that must be carefully vetted and meet our laws, they don’t pose the same risks as a mine or a hyperscale data center. That’s why MCEA joined with labor, political leaders and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce in pushing to successfully pass bipartisan clean energy permitting changes in 2024, which removed duplication and bottlenecks in approving needed renewable energy projects.

Minnesota has the right and the responsibility to hold projects to high standards, especially when hundreds of years of water pollution, our progress toward a cleaner energy grid and damage to our climate and communities are at stake. These aren’t partisan issues. All Minnesotans depend on clean air and water. Protecting them is not anti-business. It’s pro-Minnesota.

We know the industries will continue to test our laws and standards as they have for decades. And MCEA will be ever vigilant in protecting these standards and the interests of all Minnesotans.

###

** Curious about our take on Google’s clean energy plans for its Pine Island and Hermantown hyperscale data center proposals? Click here.