Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Collin Peterson are two Minnesota Democrats who broke with their party on restrictions to the Environmental Protection Agency in its monitoring and enforcement of greenhouse gases. Klobuchar’s votes were criticized by environmental groups while at least one conservative took her to task for not supporting strong enough restrictions. During the budget showdown, Peterson played an important role in a controversial measure to prevent the EPA from monitoring greenhouse gases.

Environment Minnesota, in an email to supporters, blasted Klobuchar for her votes last week. “With these votes, Sen. Klobuchar had a choice: stand up for the health of our children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations, or do the bidding of America’s biggest polluters. And Senator Klobuchar chose to side with polluters.”

ThinkProgress called Klobuchar one of the 17 “dirty Democrats.”

Klobuchar voted for the Baucus amendment which would have exempted agriculture and small emitters. It failed with the GOP opposing it for not being strong enough and only a handful of Democrats voting “aye.” Klobuchar also voted for the Stabenow amendment which would have put restrictions on the EPA enforcement of greenhouse gases for two years.

Phil Kerpen of the Koch brothers–backed Americans for Prosperity trashed those measures calling them “phony amendments that only pretended to stop the EPA’s job-crushing regulations.”

The White House praised the Senate for rejecting the efforts that Klobuchar backed.

“The administration is encouraged by the Senate’s actions today to defend the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health under the Clean Air Act,” President Obama said in a statement. “By rejecting efforts to rollback EPA’s common-sense steps to safeguard Americans from harmful pollution, the Senate also rejected an approach that would have increased the nation’s dependence on oil, contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming, and jeopardized America’s ability to lead the world in the clean energy economy.”

The Senate cast its votes to curtail the EPA’s authority on greenhouse gases last Wednesday, and the House — with the help of a few Democrats — attempted to add them to the budget resolution that almost shut down the government.

Rep. Peterson was at the heart of those efforts.

He was a cosponsor of the attempt to curtail the EPA. According to the New York Times, he offered legislation because of “all this stuff the EPA is doing to ethanol and every other damn thing they are doing.”

In a statement, Peterson cited agricultural concerns.

“This bill hits the pause button on EPA’s current efforts to regulate greenhouse gases,” he said. “America’s farmers and ranchers are committed to preserving our natural resources for the next generation, but what we’re seeing from EPA could potentially interfere with conservation efforts already underway. EPA’s regulations would not only make it harder for agriculture producers to meet increased demand but raise costs on all consumers. If Congress fails to act the economic effects could be devastating.”

The measure was cosponsored by Peterson as well as Republican Reps. John Kline and Michele Bachmann, and was eventually pulled in the final budget agreement late Friday night.

Environmental groups are going after Minnesota members of Congress who have voted to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas pollution. A recent poll shows that votes by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann and Chip Cravaack aren’t popular in their districts, and Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat, is getting attacked from both sides — the GOP says his stance against EPA regulation is “wishy washy,” while interest groups say he’s siding with foreign oil producers.

In late February, the U.S. House voted to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses as air pollution in an amendment to the government spending bill. That bill would be valid for the rest of 2011. Voting for the ban were Republican Reps. Erik Paulsen, John Kline, Bachmann and Cravaack who were joined by DFLer Peterson.

Peterson has backed up his opposition to the EPA Thursday by signing on to a bill that would permanently bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

The Truman National Security Project (TNSP), a national security nonprofit that views dependence on foreign oil to be a national security concern, criticized Peterson in an email to the Minnesota Independent. The group has created a campaign called Operation Free: Secure America with Clean Energy.

“Representative Peterson has said we need to rein in the EPA, but what really needs to be reined in is this Congress’s addiction to oil,” wrote TNSP press secretary Laura Britton. “In light of the unanimous agreement of our military and security leadership that oil money funds terrorism and puts our troops in unnecessary danger, we are surprised and disappointed in Peterson’s decision to support this shortsighted proposal. We urge Peterson to stand up with our veterans, military leaders, and security experts in defending the EPA’s efforts to protect America through clean energy policies.”

Peterson also took heat from the Republican Party of Minnesota which called him “wish washy.”

“Collin Peterson once again proves that Minnesota deserves better leadership than he can offer,” GOP chair Tony Sutton said in a statement on Thursday. “After voting for the job killing cap and trade bill in 2009, Peterson now says ‘the EPA needs to be reined in’ and blocked from reducing the gases that are blamed for global warming. Minnesota deserves more than a wishy washy leader who is unwilling to take a firm stand. There is no telling how long Peterson will stand against the EPA before he changes his mind again.”

Shortly after the vote to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases in the continuing resolution, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commissioned a poll by Public Policy Poling that found voters in Bachmann’s and Cravaack’s districts opposed that vote.

In the 6th Congressional District, 64 percent of voters said they opposed Bachmann’s late-February vote to “block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.” That sample included 60 percent of independents and 35 percent of Republicans opposing the vote. The poll also found that 69 percent of voters wanted the EPA to “reduce carbon pollution without delay,” with 65 percent of independents and 47 percent of Republicans agreeing.

“Americans are clearly persuaded that their health needs should take priority over the profits of polluters” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. “Political affiliation doesn’t appear to count for much when constituents are asked whether their representatives in Congress should be siding with the public’s health or the political clout of polluters.”

The poll also found that 73 percent – including a majority of Republicans – think “EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed” and 78 percent agreed that the United States should be “protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment.”

The poll was conducted from February 18 to 19 and had a sample size of 956 with a margin of error of 3.2 percent.

“The message is as clear here as clean air: People in Rep. Bachmann’s district want Rep. Bachmann to let the EPA do its job instead of putting the profit-driven agenda of big polluters ahead of the health of their children,” said Samantha Chadwick of Environment Minnesota.

In Cravaack’s district, the poll showed similar numbers: 67 percent of voters, which included 58 percent of independents and 36 percent of Republicans, opposed efforts to “block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”

In the poll, 73 percent of voters said they thought that “EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.” That included 53 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents.

The poll has a sample size of 1,022 and a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

Gov. Mark Dayton signed a controversial bill into law on Thursday that would reform the environmental permitting process in Minnesota. Environmental groups had slammed the bill; but despite that, Dayton signed an executive order implementing most of the reforms. Republicans offered Dayton faint praise Thursday evening after Dayton made their bill the law of the land.

In a letter to the bill’s authors, Dayton said, “I will affirm my resolve to do everything necessary to protect Minnesota’s citizens and environment, while at the same time expediting permitting approvals for responsible business projects that will put more citizens to work.”

Steven Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership said the bill was “a reasonable idea gone bad.”

In a statement, Morse outlined his group’s concerns: “The Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board should not be exempted from environmental review; citizens should have the right to air concerns in their district courts; and businesses should not be the first to draft the assessment of their own environmental impacts.”

Even though Republicans spent the afternoon taking digs at Dayton’s budget proposal by forcing a vote meant to embarrass him, they praised his signing of the bill and an ability to work together.

“The bill received strong bipartisan support. I am pleased Governor Dayton and his administration joined us in our efforts to improve the business climate and create jobs while protecting the environment and human health,” said the bill’s author,Rep. Dan Fabian, in a statement by the House Republican Caucus.

“The passage of this legislation shows we can work together to get the job done,” House Speaker Kurt Zellers added. “Jobs are our top priority. We need to remove obstacles in state government to provide more certainty and efficiency in a complex permitting process. Our economic recovery is bolstered by this reasonable regulatory reform. We thank Governor Dayton for his support of this job critical legislation.”

Rep. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) is pushing for more new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, but the Shakopee Republican is undeterred by reports about the effects of carbon-emitting energy production on global warming. His reason: He believes God will prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuels while also eliminating the harms associated with climate change. While Beard speaks from his religious tradition, many others in Minnesota’s faith communities believe it’s dangerous to wait for divine intervention to solve our environmental problems — and they say it’s the duty of people of faith to preserve the planet for future generations.

In an interview with MinnPost’s Don Shelby on Tuesday, Rep. Beard explained his recent push for new coal-burning power plants in Minnesota.

In the Minnesota House, Beard has taken aim at clean air standards — in particular those that curb carbon dioxide emissions by power plants. He introduced HF72, which would lift the ban on new coal plants, and he also introduced HF509 to repeal the 2007 plan — touted by Gov. Tim Pawlenty — to curb greenhouse gasses and build Minnesota’s renewable energy infrastructure.

“A lot of what Beard knows he learned in church,” wrote Shelby. “One Congressman, talking about global warming, recently said that God wouldn’t allow man to do anything to destroy the planet. Beard told me, ‘It is the height of hubris to think we could.’”

That congressman, Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, made his remarks before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in November. “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over,” he said. “Man will not destroy this Earth.”

Rep. Mike Beard

Beard also told Shelby that God would prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuels like coal: “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable. We are not going to run out of anything.”

While the view that humans can have negative impacts on the earth is prominent among some conservative evangelical Christians, it’s not the view of the majority of faith traditions in Minnesota.

It’s certainly not for Chuck Dayton, a retired environmental lawyer who has been following the push for more coal-fired power plants in the state. He says there are no pending applications for coal plants in Minnesota and that specific exemptions exist that already allow for new coal plants in some cases.

He pointed out that coal has become expensive “because of the cost of transportation fuel, and that the cost of natural gas had plummeted.”

“Minnesota does not need new coal-fired power,” he said.

Dayton is co-chair of a new coalition of faith groups in Minnesota called Minnesota Interfaith Power and Light. The group works to educate congregations about how they can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, provide educational opportunities for people of faith on the issue of global warming and contribute a faith-based voice to public policy surrounding climate change issues.

He said that many people of faith view the Genesis commandment of “dominion” as a call to exercise stewardship of the earth. “There are a number of devout evangelicals who believe that it is the command of God to protect the earth, and eminent theologians have identified compassion as the the main common element in all religions.”

“We are already beginning to see the devastation that a warming world can bring to human beings,” he told the Minnesota Independent, citing wildfires in Russia and floods in Pakistan as recent examples of human suffering from a changing climate.

“So the question for congregations in America is, ‘How can we Americans, who are more responsible per person than any nation on earth for the growing burden of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, sit by while our country does nothing to try to solve the problem?’” he asked.

Of the thought that God will prevent humans from negatively impacting the Earth, as Beard and Shimkus have argued, Dayton is not convinced.

“It’s just plain wrong-headed to think that divine intervention will fix everything,” he said pointing to the six great extinctions thus far in the planet’s history. “One could say, ‘Well, life persisted and got better, ’cause here we are, the pinnacle of creation, so that was all a part of God’s plan.’”

He continued, “But suppose that immense human suffering results from global climate change, that tens of millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of human deaths occur because of it, not to mention the loss of a quarter of all species on the planet?”

“Life will continue, of course, but this is a harm that we have the power to prevent,” he said. “Most religions believe that we have free will. We can sin and we can do bad things to the earth; its our choice and we must suffer the consequences.”

Dayton pointed out that many large Christian denominations have already taken a strong stance on the issue of global warming.

The United Methodist Church said, “We, as stewards, have failed to live into our responsibility to care for creation.” The U.S. Catholic Bishops said that the Church’s “response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation.” The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America said, “We see the despoiling of the environment as nothing less than the degradation of God’s gracious gift of creation.”

The Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Quakers, Presbyterians, prominent Muslims and many Jewish traditions have spoken of the urgent need to curb greenhouse gasses.

Dayton’s group is part of a national network of Interfaith Power and Light, and last weekend congregations across the country spoke about the issue during their worship services. “Minnesota’s response was very strong with over 30 churches talking about the subject,” he said.

And some religious leaders are even exploring a return to non-violent civil disobedience over the issue as a sense of urgency has been growing.

“By the time the worst disasters begin to appear, the burden [of greenhouse gasses] in the atmosphere is there and will remain,” said Dayton. “We could not then change it by stopping all carbon emissions. So the need is to act now.”

Gov. Mark Dayton signed an executive order on Monday that would speed up the environmental permitting process of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The order is similar to a bill proposed by Republicans and was one of their top “job creation” priorities.

“I am pleased that Legislative Leaders and I agree on the need to streamline permitting processes and shorten review timelines in order to support businesses expanding and creating new jobs,” Dayton said in a statement announcing the executive order. “MPCA Commissioner Aasen and DNR Commissioner Landwehr deserve great credit for swiftly mobilizing their agencies to respond more quickly to business needs, while at the same time protecting our citizens and our environment.”

The order would direct state agencies to make a decision on applications within 150 days and to make a decision on environmental impact studies in 30 days. It directs agencies to accept applications and environmental impact studies electronically.

The order also says that when state environmental law is more stringent than federal law or the law of surrounding states, the permitting agency must provide a justification for why the bar would be set higher for that specific permit.

The contents of the order are very similar to a bill introduced by Republican Rep. Dan Fabian of Roseau and was a capstone bill in the job creation plan introduced by Republicans in the first week of the legislative session.

One key provision that seems to have been left out is one that would allow developers to write their own environmental impact studies instead of the permitting agency.

Here’s a copy of Dayton’s order:

EO 11-04 Signed

Legislators in the Minnesota House and Senate are proposing a repeal of a decades-old program to protect the Mississippi River. HF95/SF39 would eliminate the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA), a program that since the 1970s has provided planning and management for the 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi from Ramsey in northern Anoka County to Hastings in southern Dakota County. River advocates say the repeal of the program could have significant impacts on the environmental and aesthetic benefits of the river.

The bill itself is very simple — “Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 116G.15, is repealed” — but the consequences will be serious if the bill is signed into law, according to Whitney Clark of the Friends of the Mississippi River.

“It would be a huge blow to the long-standing state commitment to protecting the river,” Clark told the Minnesota Independent. “It’s something that has had bipartisan support since the 1970s, and it would eliminate protections that the river has enjoyed for years.”

The MRCA was created in 1976 by DFL Gov. Wendell Anderson, continued by Republican Gov. Al Quie, and made permanent by the Metropolitan Council and the Legislature in 1991. The program has five purposes: to protect a valuable state resource, prevent damage to the river, enhance its public use, protect it as a transportation system and preserve the biology and ecology of the river.

Most of the legislators who have introduced the bill are from the northern part of the MRCA zone:  It was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Benjamin Kruse (R-Brooklyn Park), Michele Benson (R-Ham Lake), Roger Chamberlain (R-Lino Lakes), Mike Jungbauer (R-Anoka), and Bill Ingebrigtsen (R-Alexandria), and in the House by Reps. Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park), Peggy Scott (R-Andover), Denise Dittrich (DFL-Champlin), Brandon Petersen (R-Andover), and Jim Abeler (R-Anoka). A group of property owners from that area have recently launched a petition drive to get the MRCA repealed.

The Mississippi River Stewards, which says the MRCA infringes on members’ property rights, are circulating a petition urging “the Governor and the Minnesota Legislature to repeal Minnesota Statutes Section 116G.15 that grants [Department of Natural Resources] authority to generate the Critical Corridor rules.”

The DNR is wrapping up a process of making new rules for the MRCA under the direction of the Minnesota Legislature. In 2009, lawmakers said that the DNR needed to reevaluate the program. The proposal the DNR came up with, after weighing the needs of many stakeholders from industry, homeowners and city administrators to biologists, sportsmen and environmental groups, seems to have angered just about everyone.

The DNR doesn’t have any law enforcement authority over those rules, however. It merely sets standards, leaving riverfront communities to propose, pass and enforce ordinances related to building height, recreation areas and riverbank stabilization.

But, the Mississippi River Stewards and area legislators are saying they want to scrap the program altogether over disagreements about the rule-making process.

“We feel that there are aesthetic motivations behind [the rules] that go above and beyond an environmental or preservation benefit, and that these aesthetic goals should not supercede property owners’ rights to use their property in a reasonable manner that was lawful when they acquired the property,” the Stewards note. “Though this may seem at first to only affect a small group, once put in place, it threatens the rights of all Minnesota citizens, by setting a precedent that demotes property owners to mere inhabitants of government-controlled lands which are subject to de facto confiscation at any time via zoning and use regulations.”

Whitney at the Friends of the Mississippi River said his group is not happy with everything about the rule-making process either, but that is an issue when dealing with a diversity of stakeholders.

Still, he contends the MRCA remains important.

“It’s the first line of defense in protecting the river corridor,” said Clark. A repeal of the program “would eliminate the potential for the state to update common sense rules.”

He added, “What we want is a river that is as healthy or even healthier than it is today so that people eat the fish they catch or enjoy the scenery.”

The state so far has spent $500,000 in evaluating the program and the rule-making process.

Sen. Al Franken told the Rochester Post-Bulletin that he has changed his mind on nuclear power due to a conversation with former Vice President Al Gore. Nuclear power has become a hot topic in Minnesota politics as legislators, mainly Republicans, look to lift the ban on new nuclear power plant construction. That plan has already passed one committee in the Minnesota House.
Franken said that with newer technologies, nuclear waste handling and storage capabilities can be improved and nuclear power can play a role in curbing global warming, the Post-Bulletin reports.

“Yes, (the nuclear waste) will be around for hundreds of thousands of years, but I am kind of hoping we will, too,” Franken said. “And I am kind of hoping that just as we’re going from a decade to map the human genome to a day or two days or whatever it is that we will be more and more sophisticated on storing the waste.”

He said it was a conversation with Gore that helped him change his position on the use of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse emissions.

“Nuclear has to be a part of the solution to that,” he said.

Franken didn’t directly address the lifting of Minnesota’s ban on construction of new nuclear plants, but the Post-Bulletin editorial board came out in favor this week of lifting the ban on nuclear power plant construction, which has been in place for 17 years in Minnesota.

Concerns about air pollution and global warming are blocking the construction of new coal-fired plants, and although wind energy is an important part of our future, it won’t keep up with our state’s increasing appetite for energy. Our two nuclear plants provide one-quarter of the state’s electricity — more than all “green” energy sources combined — but their futures beyond 2030 are uncertain at best.

The bottom line is that Minnesota needs to keep all of its energy options open.

“This disaster has compelled us to reexamine the framework for Federal oversight and regulation of potentially-limitless sources of oil, deep beneath the surface of the ocean, and the difficulty in controlling and remediating potentially massive releases of oil beyond the reach of direct human control,” Oberstar said on the House floor on Wednesday. “In addition, this disaster requires that we reexamine the wisdom of oil exploration policies that push the envelope on drilling technologies without any assurance that these underwater resources can be shut down or adequately controlled and cleaned up if something goes wrong.”

He added, “Finally, this disaster has forced us to reexamine the safety standards for offshore oil exploration and production activities to minimize the potential for future losses of life.”

“What I’ve taken from discussions I’ve had recently in Washington is that there has not been enough focus on the potential effects of the oil spill on migratory birds,” Klobuchar told the Star Tribune. “The focus so far has been on fishing in the Gulf and the economics of the way of life along the Gulf.”

Klobuchar will be meeting with:

Phil Jenni, Executive Director of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center – Ryan Heiniger, Director of Conservation Programs in Minnesota and Iowa, Ducks Unlimited – Carrol Henderson, Supervisor of the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – Mark Martell, Director of Bird Conservation, Minnesota Audubon – Juli Ponder, Executive Director of The Raptor Center

“In retrospect, you would not have stopped that drilling? I’m asking if 8 weeks ago you would have stopped that drilling?” asked Franken.

“I would not, because we have to be bound, and the administration has to be bound, by the contractual rights of the lessees,” said Coleman. “It is not an unreasonable risk to allow more drilling.”

“This tragedy shows us that our laws aren’t doing enough,” Franken said in a statement following the hearings. “We need to improve our laws so that bad actors like BP can’t just make a business decision to ignore them. We need laws that better incentivize safety. And we need laws that strictly penalize violations, and help the people harmed by those violations.”

Here’s video of Franken questioning Coleman about the BP disaster: