glencore

Thoughts on the 2018 DFL Primary

August 13, 2018, By JT Haines

It’s finally primary day tomorrow. Here’s who I’m voting for, and a few reasons why.

1. ** Erin Murphy for Governor **. She’s the best candidate in the race. She’s positive and charismatic and energizing a diverse coalition. If you’ve met her, you probably like her. She and her team were stellar at the DFL convention (and smart and respectful). She has prioritized Greater Minnesota, and any suggestions otherwise are a smear. Erin Maye Quade on the ticket is a strength and I celebrate the choice. She is the obvious choice on single payer health care, and has the support of the nurses (when in doubt, stick with the nurses). I haven’t been able to promote formal endorsement of Murphy in Duluth because she’s not publicly there on Glencore/PolyMet, but I will be voting for her as the best candidate, and count on her promise at the convention to work with us on that absolutely fundamental issue. https://murphyformn.com/

Honorable mention to Peggy Flanagan. Her running mate has some serious work to do if he’s to mobilize progressive voters in this area. He has rested on advice from Rick Nolan, and that has not served him well. If he prevails tomorrow, we hope to see better from him. The Swanson/Nolan ticket, meanwhile, is just historically awful and cynical, on all the levels. If those two come through tomorrow with Golden Retriever ads, we are going to be in a seriously bad way this Fall. C’mon Dems.

2. ** Michelle Lee for Congress -MN **. This is the easiest race for me up here in Minnesota’s 8th. Not only is Michelle Lee best on the issues, she also gives Democrats the best and maybe only chance to win in November. She draws the right contrast with Stauber (who will be strong), unlike the glossy Super PAC veneer of her primary opponent. Michelle has done the most work to build bridges and relationships around the entire district, and can help forge a better path forward. She has name recognition and people like her. Just this morning, the front desk attendant at my local USPS beamed at the sight of my Lee sticker. People LIKE her. She has evolved as a campaigner, she stands for the right things, and the 8th will be a better, more local, more Minnesotan, and more positive place this Fall if she’s our candidate. Lee is Duluth for Clean Water endorsed. https://www.michellelee.org/ 

3. ** Richard Painter **, US Senate. Richard is principled, bold, and he has the ability and willingness to fight. His (appointed) opponent refuses to debate, is corporate-backed and corporate-tied, and has subverted downstream issues and demoralized progressive voters. Richard draws the best contrast with the Republican. He will be our best advocate in the Senate. He’s solid on the issues, including on single payer health care, and calling out the real reasons we don’t have it yet. His former party affiliation does not (overly) concern me, especially in light of his opponent’s corporate backing. The Party Boss’s smear that Painter previously gave 14 grand to the GOP is, frankly, sad, and won’t play well in the long term. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican, and they’re both consistent on the issues. Painter says a woman’s body and whom one chooses to love is none of the government’s business and I believe him. He knows more about the Supreme Court and what it will take to neutralize it than the rest of us combined. His quarter million bucks is an asset in the context of his opponent’s six million — I just refuse to believe that MN Dems cannot overcome “coffee and donut” ads. Larry Jacobs, no radical himself, called this race a tossup on CBS in the Twin Cities yesterday. It’s time for a new course, not the old course. Painter is Duluth for Clean Water endorsed. https://www.painterminnesota.com/ 

4. ** Matt Pelikan for Attorney General.** Keith Ellison has been an amazing congressperson and boldly supportive on all the issues I care about. There’s no way to summarize my feeling’s about Keith’s choice to enter this race, his dancing on core enviro issues, his endorsements, and now the extremely disturbing allegations against him in a few words. So instead I will just say, Matt Pelikan was amazing at the DFL convention, is excellent on the issues, is positive and even funny. He was willing to do the dirty and necessary work of challenging Lori S. when no one else was, and earned an endorsement. I think he’d be a really refreshing change in the AG office, and have no doubt that even with his somewhat limited experience he would be a dramatic upgrade. I’m going to vote for him. I hope that if the allegations are true, Keith withdraws. https://mattpelikan.com/

There you have it. Happy voting, good people.

###

Advertisements
photo MPR News

Murphy for Clean Water? Reflections on #DFL2018

June 4, 2018 — By JT Haines

As expected, most clean water delegates entered the 2018 DFL State Convention supporting Rebecca Otto. This was certainly true of the Duluth delegation, with whom I work most closely. Clean water advocates have appreciated Rebecca Otto’s important defense of our watersheds and Minnesota’s taxpayers, and she has helped elevate the critical Glencore/PolyMet issue statewide. As far as I can tell, the majority of statewide Democrats actually agree with the outgoing Auditor on her underlying position on copper sulfide mining. Where we sometimes disagree is how, when, and whether to emphasize the issue politically. Clean water advocates, especially those downstream, say now, of course, and Rebecca Otto has helped with that.

After three short rounds of voting at the convention, though, and with the Otto campaign placing third and dropping from balloting, most clean water delegates were quickly considering Erin Murphy for governor, and almost all did vote to endorse her. How did this happen? And what should clean water voters around the state think about this turn?

Well firstly, Rebecca Otto entering the convention floor hand in hand with Tim Walz, right in front of a core of CD8 supporters, did not serve the purpose either campaign had hoped. It was a shocking move, with a truly unfortunate visual, and it certainly truncated people’s grieving period. For most outside the campaign, we wanted to see Team Otto marshall her moment in a more productive manner for the issues we care about. (Those inside the campaign have a different set of considerations, of course.)

But let’s talk about the now DFL-endorsed candidate for governor, Erin Murphy. There is a lot to like about Rep. Murphy and her running mate Rep. Erin Maye Quade. I’ll let friends who know them both better speak to the wide range of important issues the campaign stands for, but one can at least immediately say that they are progressive women who are energizing a diverse coalition. The ground game Saturday was stellar, a reflection of Rep. Murphy herself who has appeared confident, competent, and charismatic.

In terms of issues, health care is one of the most important of our time, and Rep. Murphy is a supporter of Senator John Marty’s Minnesota Health Plan, the strongest position among the DFL candidates on that issue. Yes, dozens of Minnesota legislators did support the MHP before Rep. Murphy did — a point that could legitimately be made by earlier adopters like Rep. Tina Liebling if they were so inclined.

But with that said, we are where we are, and Rep. Murphy supports the MHP now. The Minnesota Nurses’ Association, one of Rep. Murphy’s most important sources of support, is leading the way with Sen. Marty on single-payer health care, including in the streets, and they will have plenty to say about how a Murphy administration approaches the issue. If explained correctly, this position should help Team Murphy reach farmers, business owners, young people, and union members across greater Minnesota.

And, not for nothing, when Erin Murphy dances on stage it feels real, not forced or self-involved. I’ll be honest, that’s a refreshing look from a politician. Her speaking style on the radio I find effective and accessible as well.

All of these things will help Democrats in August and November.

The reservation about Representative Murphy among clean water advocates is that, in our minds, there are Democrats who address the Glencore/PolyMet threat directly, and there are Democrats who have sought to avoid and suppress it as a legitimate political priority. Rep. Murphy has, in the not distant past, seemed to be in the latter camp. Campaign volunteers have at times been dismissive of the issue on the phone, and the official line from the campaign is the “process” response, which advocates recognize as a means to say as little as possible on the issue, whatever its level of importance.

While we don’t agree with that strategy, of course, we can at least understand why it appears attractive in the short term. Choosing between a difficult political choice, and a catastrophic issue position, is a terrible place to be, and it is for that reason that I do have sympathy for people like State Chair Ken Martin (who should also be congratulated along with many others on a superbly run convention). The problem with the “process” approach, though, at least for the increasing number of voters who prioritize this issue, is that it does not address the legitimate concerns people have with the process itself, how it has failed, and how it will likely fail again. Plenty more to say about that, to be sure.

To their credit, though, Team Murphy started having this conversation with clean water advocates before the convention, and a commitment to continuing the conversation was made, making her a much easier second choice for delegates and someone we can hope to work with. There are, it should also be said, highly committed members of Team Murphy who are also highly fluent on Glencore/PolyMet and the threat those foreign billionaires pose, which gives me some comfort.

Does any of this guarantee that Rep. Murphy will be a friend of Lake Superior as Governor? Of course not — but we know enough to know that’s not how politics works. Issue advocacy is accomplished through good work on deeply felt positions. Political advocacy is accomplished through evolving power and relationships. My view is that based on what we know today there is room to work with the Murphy campaign, and I for one am encouraged by that.

I think it’s okay to be encouraged once in a while.

Speaking of which, all of our Duluth Mayor and legislators have endorsed Team Murphy, as have AFSCME, MNA, TakeAction, and many other organizations who are prominent in Duluth and statewide politics. These players don’t always prioritize our watershed the way we do, and that has been frequently disappointing, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a priority for them at all. Perhaps I’m suffering from a moment of giddiness in the wake of an extremely active convention that will have me looking foolish sometime in the future, but for now it is a pleasure and frankly relief to be sharing a direct commonality of electoral interest with these folks. I hope that proves to be more than a blip.

All of this is to say, I think the meaningful support of Team Murphy shown by clean water advocates at the convention should be considered by my clean water friends for the longer term as well. Firm commitments on an issue that we consider an existential threat to our communities are desired, understandably, but we should also consider the advantages that that an energized Murphy campaign — which can progress on the water issue — may offer.

In any case, that’s where we’re at. The Erins are endorsed by the body, and the clean water delegates helped accomplish that. Glencore/PolyMet is an unacceptable threat to our precious water, and no political convention or alliance is going to change that core position. The best first option moving forward is to find ways to work together with Team Murphy while we continue our staunch issue organizing in parallel.

###

A note about the Walz/Flanagan campaign. For the good things that may be said about Tim Walz, he has adopted — many assume directly — Rick Nolan’s approach to the Glencore/PolyMet issue, which regrettably has rendered his campaign facially unacceptable to most clean water voters. His convention strategy in Rochester reflected one of noise and brute force — a notable contrast with the positivity of the Murphy campaign — alienating many who were not wearing yellow. The core union support for the Walz campaign, in contrast to that of Rep. Murphy, tends to be from those who are the most vocally in support of the dangerous Glencore/PolyMet proposal — and that proposal, it should be said, in its best incarnation would tear up thousands of acres of critical habitat and of wetlands which currently serve as a carbon sink. (PolyMet’s proposal is not, as Rick Nolan has unbelievably suggested, a “climate solution,” it’s a climate catastrophe, and that’s the best case scenario.) US Senate candidate Richard Painter has it right. Glencore cannot be trusted under any circumstance. If they are given a foothold here, it will be “all bottled water and chain link fence” in Northern Minnesota. Tim Walz needs to abandon this marriage to have any hope of earning the enthusiastic support of clean water Democrats, and, more and more every day, Minnesota Democrats in general.

The unity path forward is to respect all communities, including those downstream, and the promise there is in the Flanagan portion of the ticket. Peggy Flanagan is a popular and progressive state representative, remarkably positive, and a staunch defender of wild rice and the sulfate standard which Glencore/PolyMet seeks to weaken — a matter to which she brings particular credibility as a woman of indigenous heritage. At this point I see her presence on the ticket as something to celebrate. In the event Walz does manage a primary victory in August, I suggest clean water folks will want to champion and promote Rep. Flanagan as co-governor.

[Update: Lori Swanson and Rick Nolan filed as well. To be clear, they may be able to buy some votes with TV money, but they are also an absolute non-starter for clean water voters and others. It will be a disaster for the DFL if that ticket succeeds in August.]

JT Haines is a lawyer, labor supporter, and clean water advocate in Duluth. A former union representative with AFSCME Council 65, JT is a volunteer organizer with Duluth for Clean Water and a member of its active committees. He has been writing about the PolyMet issue in Minnpost, the Duluth News Tribune, and on this blog since 2013.

PolyMet Review Not Like Poker

IMG_0244

By JT Haines – December 6, 2015

I clicked the link in the above tweet this morning and took a look at Mining Minnesota’s stock comment to Governor Dayton with industry’s reasons why the Final EIS is “beyond adequate.” (Full text of the comment is below.) My purpose here is to simply offer a quick response to the first two of these “reasons,” which have been persisting in the discussion for years despite a lack of any real value.

MM’s Reason #1: “The Co-lead Agencies have spent 10 years evaluating potential project effects and alternatives.”

Yes, it has taken a long time. Simply put – having spent 10 years on something isn’t a reason to keep doing it. Really, the fact that the project has required 10 years to evaluate is no more a reason to move forward with it than it is a reason not to move forward with it. This isn’t poker, we’re not pot committed.

MM’s Reason #2:  “The Final EIS responds in detail to thousands of public comments and questions submitted during the review periods for the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS.”

This is, again, simply a reiteration of the stage of the process we’re in — not a substantive point for or against anything. Comments have been submitted (a record number against, actually), and comments have been responded to –that’s the point of the process. So, again,”Lots of time has already been spent on this” is not a reason to DO anything. (By the way, remind me never to take investment advice from Mining Minnesota: “JT, you’ve lost so much money on this stock, obviously you must invest more.”)

Repeat them ad nauseum if you will, but these “the process is lengthy” arguments remain logically empty — they don’t actually mean anything other than this thing has already cost us all a lot of time and money.

At some point, if it still looks like a turkey…

Finally, @GoPolyMet’s tweet mentions bringing “hundreds of #jobs to the area,” so I’ll conclude with this: Spending millions of dollars adding 350 jobs — jobs beholden to a gigantic, foreign, anti-union mining conglomerate (Glencore XStrata) and a volatile international metals market — while in the midst of our own extremely challenging time where we’re losing far more than 350 existing mining jobs, would not on its face appear to be a sensible jobs program, if that’s what this is supposed to be. We can do better.

For the full text of the Final EIS and fact sheets, or to comment, visit DNR.
For Mining Minnesota’s full suggested comment to the Governor, click here. The text is also below.
For Mining Truth’s full suggested comment to the Governor (and response to the remainder of Mining Minnesota’s comment), click here.

 

###

TELL THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES YOU SUPPORT THE FINAL EIS FOR POLYMET

Final EIS for PolyMet’s NorthMet Mine is beyond adequate
The Final EIS for PolyMet’s proposed mine concludes a thorough and independent review of the project’s potential environmental effects. After 10 years of study, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Forest Service have looked at the evidence and correctly found that the NorthMet Mine can comply with strict state and federal environmental standards.
The Final EIS for the NorthMet Mine is far beyond “adequate.” It takes a careful and comprehensive look at the project from every angle.
– The Co-lead Agencies have spent 10 years evaluating potential project effects and alternatives.
– The Final EIS responds in detail to thousands of public comments and questions submitted during the review periods for the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS.
– The project’s water modeling—which was fully updated for the Final EIS—shows that PolyMet’s treatment and mitigation plans will prevent acid mine drainage and meet all water quality standards.
– After careful review, the Final EIS concludes that groundwater flows from the NorthMet project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or Voyageurs National Park, and that any possible groundwater flow would be prevented.
– The Final EIS also specifically considered the project’s potential effects on air quality and water quality with respect to human health, and identified no adverse health risks.
– In short, the Final EIS meets all of the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The time has come to move forward. The DNR should affirm the adequacy of the Final EIS so it can serve as the foundation for the state of Minnesota’s permitting process.

 

 

 

 

It’s time to #BenchPolymet at the @MSHSL Hockey Tourneys

Tourney 2014 KSTC 45. Big day for this high schooler, getting interviewed on TV by Tom Hauser! Unbeknownst to him, he has a non-paying endorsement deal with a corporate mining company.

Big day for this high schooler, getting interviewed on TV by Tom Hauser! Unbeknownst to him, he has a non-paying endorsement deal with a corporate mining company. (Tourney 2014, KSTC 45)

By JT Haines — February 18, 2015

It’s that time of year. Every year since forever, hockey teams from across Minnesota participate in the greatest tournament of all time: The Minnesota state high school hockey tourney. The 2015 girls’ tourney starts today and runs through Feb 21. The boys’ tourney dates are March 4-7. You can watch the action in person at the Xcel Energy Center in Saint Paul (tickets here) or on TV on KSTC45. I can’t wait.

Also happening right now in Minnesota is agency review of perhaps the most controversial permit application in the history of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. As readers of this site well know, a Canadian corporation called PolyMet (owned substantially by an even larger foreign corporation called Glencore) is in a multi-year permit application process seeking to conduct nonferrous (sulfide) mining in Northern Minnesota.

Trouble is, this would be a new type of mining in Minnesota, more dangerous than taconite/ferrous mining we are more used to. Briefly, instead of producing rust when exposed to air and water like iron ore, sulfide ores produce acid, creating all sorts of habitat risks like the leeching of heavy metals such as mercury into watersheds. Levels of attention to this issue during agency review may be unprecedented. Public comments last winter numbered 58,000, smashing the previous record by a factor of ten. This is a major public moment for Minnesota. (Here is DNR info. See gopolymet.com for the project’s corporate narrative, and miningtruth.org for responses.)

How does this relate to high school hockey, you ask? Well, frankly, that’s a helluva good question. I have the same question for PolyMet.

You see, for at least the past two boys’ tournaments (2013 and 2014), PolyMet has used our public tournament for its own propaganda, placing ads everywhere. Here are two more pictures from last year:

Scoreboard at the X, 2014 State HS Tourney

Scoreboard at the X, 2014 State HS Tourney

Boards at the X, 2014 State HS Tourney

Boards at the X, 2014 State HS Tourney

Wherever you stand on the underlying issue — misappropriating an unsuspecting high school kid’s big day, while the controversial public decision is pending, is simply unethical. Leave these kids alone, and let’m play.

As for the 2015 tourneys, I’m not aware of PolyMet’s plans (they don’t generally consult me), but this banner on http://www.prep45.com from today suggests we can expect more of the same:

PolyMet Banner Ad on KSTC Prep45 Tournament Info page from Feb 18, 2015

PolyMet Banner Ad on KSTC Prep45 Tournament Info page from Feb 18, 2015

So. When we see ads again at our public tournaments, whether the boys’ hockey tournament, girls’ hockey tournament, or other (I noticed them at football this year too), I say it’s time for a response. Let’s #BenchPolyMet.

I invite you to join in:

  • Tweeting and posting on social media using the hashtag #BenchPolyMet. Tag @MSHSL and @KSTC45 for maximum effect. Tag @newspeakreview for retweets.
  • Make a #BenchPolyMet sign. Display it at the tourney — (mega bonus points if you can get it on TV!)

Most of us who care about the integrity of our democracy and public decision making processes in Minnesota don’t have the big bucks that PolyMet does to spread our message, but we have our Minnesota voices. Let’s use ‘em. Attention to PolyMet’s corporate propaganda at the hockey tourneys is growing, and several organizations have already indicated interest in the #BenchPolyMet social media campaign. It’s time to #BenchPolyMet, @MSHSL @KSTC45.

FAQ:

What’s the big deal? I promise you the ad agents for PolyMet think it’s a big deal – why else are they there. The goal of their ads, of course, is to steadily place soft images of PolyMet as a friendly corporate citizen in our collective subconscious, hoping to weaken resolve and our focus on the danger they present to our environment and to their ultimate motive, which is profit. It’s insidious. Pretending to ignore it is not the right response.

Is #BenchPolymet political? Yes. You’re dern right it is – just as PolyMet’s ads are. PolyMet proponents and industry reps are constantly instructing the public to “let the process work” in response to the voicing of legit concerns. Yet, at this key moment of review, PolyMet exploits our tournaments for their ads, seeking to impact our political process. It’s not appropriate.

#BenchPolyMet @MSHSL @KSTC45

Mining Minnesota OpEd Distracts from True Purpose

Mt. Polly Tailings Breach

Mt. Polley tailings breach, British Columbia, August 2014. Photo Credit Caribou Regional District.

By JT Haines — January, 7, 2015

The Mesabi Daily News published an OpEd by Mining Minnesota Executive Director Frank Ongaro on December 20, 2014, and I’d like to take a minute to offer some thoughts in response here on Newspeak Review.

In his OpEd, Mr. Ongaro claims to break down a false choice between “the environment” and “jobs.” I believe he misses the real choice — between elevating the interests of multinational corporations and that of Minnesotans.

First, let’s be clearer than Ongaro about something that should be well understood by now: multinational mining corporations like PolyMet and its chief investor Glencore are not here to support wind turbines, build boats and computers, employ Minnesotans, spare poor people in far off lands, or benefit labor organizations and communities. They are here for profit and to further enrich the wealthy. Suggesting otherwise is a distraction.

The real question is whether we as Minnesotans would be better off with the companies here or without them. Reasonable people obviously disagree about that, so it strikes me that that’s where our focus should be.

Glossy PR images featuring windmills and cell phones do not tell the whole story. From where I sit, I see a terrible record of destruction by the sulfide mining industry, including the recent Mt. Polley tailings disaster in Canada, not to mention anti-labor practices everywhere it operates. (For a statement from United Steelworkers last month on Glencore’s labor practices, check out usw-global-allies-rally-in-london-demand-end-to-glencore-labor-abuses.)

Ongaro references “recycling our scrap metal” but I’ve heard no announcements about shortages of key metals in Minnesota necessitating major ecological risk-taking, or discussions of more comprehensive recycling programs. I observe a lack of conversation – especially from industry PR shills – about whether Minnesotans and Rangers should be better compensated for public lands and resources which some propose compromising in service of the global market.

Perhaps most importantly, I observe increasing environmental and economic turmoil, and a conversation mostly bereft of serious consideration of proposals for local economic diversification that would better serve the Range and the state. Instead, old rhetoric is used to avoid this conversation.

Ongaro’s suggestion that those who use metals (live in society) are disqualified from asserting viewpoints about how we manage public resources is reductive and insulting. We don’t need more “we use metals for stuff” puff pieces. What does “copper is useful” really tell us? Minnesotans understand that we use metals. Commenting on the production, sale, use, and re-use of those resources is not environmental hypocrisy, it’s responsible citizenship.

We all love this place. We all want what’s best for our communities. Many of us believe now is the time to discuss whether business as usual is the way to get there, especially when dealing with companies built to profit by destroying our land and water precisely to the level we allow it.

When pro-Minnesota advocates talk about sustainability, we are not, as Ongaro argues, advocating for a “utopian” vision. We are advocating for the best and healthiest possible future for our communities. And we simply don’t believe that future includes PolyMet and Twin Metals as currently conceived.

The industry, its ultimate motivations clear, wants to convince us that there are no hard choices here – that we can have it all. That just isn’t true. Distraction from the mining industry’s true purpose does us a disservice.