Well, not perfect at all but Harris and Walz will protect the environment far more than Trump and Vance. Though he broke this promise, you still should vote for him (and Harris).
Agreed - I would have also liked to see the pipeline stopped. I don't think he's at fault here; I see his point about why he did not unilaterally stop it. He tried and he put up a fight, but when any politician takes the levers of government and makes a unilateral decision outside of the established channels, it's a bad precedent to set.
I think we should be realistic and recognize that it's not possible to win all of the climate battles while putting our energy behind the politicians and parties that will do the most to advance our climate goals.
How exactly is Heated's constant fault finding helpful? Perfection is the enemy of the good. Anyone can find faults, but can you find a constructive way forward? As a lifelong climate advocate/activist, I find this newsletter to be nauseating all too often.
Hi! I’m sorry you don’t like it. But the purpose of journalism is to give voice to the voiceless. These are folks whose voices were not being heard on an issue of great importance. If I ignored them simply just because this ticket is the lesser of two evils, I’d be doing activism, not journalism. And I hope you’ll see we were quite fair to Walz and included other perspectives.
To answer your first question: I find it helpful to know as much as I can about about a politician , corporate boss, or public figure. I do not expect perfection. When the impulse to find the perfect leader with the perfect ideas and the perfect looks starts to surface in my being, I remind myself that complexity is part of this amazing world and the challenges of it will make a better thinker/person.
I also was not a fan of this take - we need to put our energy behind the politicians that can do the most to advance our climate goals while realizing that they are not going to win every battle.
I understand what you're saying, however I think it's important to realize this particular story isn't a "take." It's the product of a journalistic question we sought to answer through reporting.
Walz is the governor of Minnesota, which has a large indigenous population. We saw a lot of national environmental groups commenting on his VP candidacy, but we did not see any comments from indigenous water protectors from the state. So we thought it was important to get those perspectives. And what we resoundingly found was that indigenous water protectors in Minnesota feel betrayed by Walz because of Line 3.
We weren't going to ignore these perspectives just because Walz is the lesser of two evils, or because it' may be politically expedient to do so. I firmly believe that people are capable of making good decisions WHILE knowing all the facts. And in fact, I don't believe it's helpful to perpetuate a culture where we put politicians on a pedestal and act as if they are beyond criticism. That's how you get Donald Trump.
Please see my prior response to another commenter, which has more substance behind the point I made, which appears to have gotten lost here. This comment just included the same takeaway from my other one.
First, sorry for calling your article a "take" - that was the wrong word choice and cheapened the work. I've been following Heated since the beginning and applaud your work.
I hear you and applaud the inclusion of indigenous voices and other perspectives in the conversation. But, as you point out, he did try to stop it, including the legal challenge he continued from the prior administration. To me, he did fulfill his promise to do what he could within his power to stop it, even though he was unsuccessful. Upon that being rejected, what other options did he have? Is there precedent for a unilateral action to reject the permits? I'm not clear on MN politics and law so I may be missing something important here, but based on what you included, it sounds like there wasn't another option.
To respond to your last point, I'm in no way advocating for putting politicians on a pedestal or not criticizing them. I just feel like the way this article was written was an unfair assessment of what he tried (but ultimately failed) to do and discounts the progress he's made on fighting climate change.
I hear you. I included the information about his climate record and the rationale for his decision-making so readers like you could potentially come to that conclusion, And you may notice, I never actually said that *I* think Walz should have issued a unilateral decision. I just felt it was important to note that many indigenous Minnesotans think he should have. Sometimes I think we're not used to climate stories that have two legitimate sides. But imo this is one of them.
I understand why these indigenous communities feel betrayed, I really do. I'm also disappointed that this pipeline was allowed to move forward, just as I'm disappointed in all the other oil and gas development the Biden Administration approved. However, I'm deeply concerned about the potential consequences of indigenous leaders advising their communities to not vote for Walz, if that's in fact what is happening (I don't know if any official positions have been announced, I'm simply taking in and trying to process what I read). I wish we had a different election structure here in the US, but the current system is essentially a two party system, like it or not. And with an election this close, choosing not to vote or voting third party is essentially a vote for Trump. We all know how much worse he would be when it comes to oil and gas development. We need every single vote we can get.
I think this is a hugely important article, because you are 100% right that giving the perspective of those who don't get much coverage and their sense of betrayal over an issue important to them, even from a Democrat, is worth covering.
I mean I have my own thoughts on Line 3 and Walz (I think he is awesome lol), but that isn't really worth anything compared to the valuable perspective of Indigenous groups here.
Also I didn't know about the relationship between Walz and Minnesota's Indigenous groups, and I'm curious if in your conversations there has been mention of that relationship translating to the executive branch if he becomes VP? Deb Haaland was seen as a big positive move from Biden on Indigenous issues, but I haven't seen any coverage of how Indigenous groups have rated her work a few years into her job. Again signifying how important coverage like this is, since it is so uncovered.
"for appointing Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe—making her Minnesota's first Native statewide elected official."
I think it's an error in the wording - she was elected as Lt. Governor but would be appointed Governor. She was already the first Native statewide elected official.
Thank you so much 😊. By the way, keep up the great work, I thoroughly enjoy reading Heated and you keep me aflot of the environmental information (and disinformation) out there. The time that saves me means a lot to me so you have my continued support (including financially).
So the awkward wording comes when the text implies that the appointment is "--making her Minnesota's first native statewide elected official."
The appointment didn't do that, she was elected Lt. Gov. already. Am I getting that right? If so, the text is simply wrong. If not, please let me know.
Yes, she was already elected Lt. Gov in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, so that made her the first Native statewide elected official.
If she is appointed as Governor, that would make her the first Native Governor of MN, but not the first elected Native Governor - she would need to win an election as a candidate for Governor for that to be true.
Oh wow, that comment about how it would break with checks and balances for Walz to block the construction is a weak cop out. Walz can only block the line because of specific powers given to him by the legislature and we have a long tradition of executive branches legislating on details or writing detailed regulations all around the west. The fact Walz could block the construction doesn’t mean a later governor could allow the construction without environmental review. There’s also no evidence that republicans/fossil fuel interests would show this courtesy to their opponents if the roles were reversed.
Now, there might be arguments that once the lawsuit failed it wasn’t worth spending political capital on blocking the pipeline through executive action. It might even have been a savvy move that allowed him to deliver the other climate wins mentioned. I don’t know if that’s the case since I don’t follow Minnesota politics. It could be and it would be a better excuse than the one given - even though it’s still a betrayal.
In any case it’s a good reminder that climate policy is everywhere and that the most important climate fights are often also incredibly local in nature.
Our Governor has been working hard on supporting climate solutions for our State. However, as part of a strong advocacy group, the Minnesota Divestment Coalition, we have been pushing our State Board of Investment (SBI) to divest from fossil fuels and invest in the clean energy future for many years. Our SBI is made up of four members, including the governor, our secretary of state, the state auditor, and our attorney general. The SBI has failed to take steps to address divestment with the exception of mostly divesting from thermal coal a couple years ago. We continue to push for there to be a more ambitious plan but as of today their plan is only to practice engagement through proxy voting. Their priority continues to only be about getting the highest rate of returns for their pensioners. They are not taking the broader fiduciary responsibility to protect all Minnesotans from the inevitable impact of the climate crisis.
Your climate journalism is essential for those seeking the facts of the issue. Please keep up the good work even if it means pissing off a few people. LFG!
It would be nuts for people to sit out this election. Trump literally offered to get rid of climate laws if the oil industry would give him a billion dollars. He brags constantly about his support for the fossil fuel industry.
Well, not perfect at all but Harris and Walz will protect the environment far more than Trump and Vance. Though he broke this promise, you still should vote for him (and Harris).
Agreed - I would have also liked to see the pipeline stopped. I don't think he's at fault here; I see his point about why he did not unilaterally stop it. He tried and he put up a fight, but when any politician takes the levers of government and makes a unilateral decision outside of the established channels, it's a bad precedent to set.
I think we should be realistic and recognize that it's not possible to win all of the climate battles while putting our energy behind the politicians and parties that will do the most to advance our climate goals.
How exactly is Heated's constant fault finding helpful? Perfection is the enemy of the good. Anyone can find faults, but can you find a constructive way forward? As a lifelong climate advocate/activist, I find this newsletter to be nauseating all too often.
Hi! I’m sorry you don’t like it. But the purpose of journalism is to give voice to the voiceless. These are folks whose voices were not being heard on an issue of great importance. If I ignored them simply just because this ticket is the lesser of two evils, I’d be doing activism, not journalism. And I hope you’ll see we were quite fair to Walz and included other perspectives.
To answer your first question: I find it helpful to know as much as I can about about a politician , corporate boss, or public figure. I do not expect perfection. When the impulse to find the perfect leader with the perfect ideas and the perfect looks starts to surface in my being, I remind myself that complexity is part of this amazing world and the challenges of it will make a better thinker/person.
^ this is why we do it. Thank you!
I also was not a fan of this take - we need to put our energy behind the politicians that can do the most to advance our climate goals while realizing that they are not going to win every battle.
I understand what you're saying, however I think it's important to realize this particular story isn't a "take." It's the product of a journalistic question we sought to answer through reporting.
Walz is the governor of Minnesota, which has a large indigenous population. We saw a lot of national environmental groups commenting on his VP candidacy, but we did not see any comments from indigenous water protectors from the state. So we thought it was important to get those perspectives. And what we resoundingly found was that indigenous water protectors in Minnesota feel betrayed by Walz because of Line 3.
We weren't going to ignore these perspectives just because Walz is the lesser of two evils, or because it' may be politically expedient to do so. I firmly believe that people are capable of making good decisions WHILE knowing all the facts. And in fact, I don't believe it's helpful to perpetuate a culture where we put politicians on a pedestal and act as if they are beyond criticism. That's how you get Donald Trump.
Happy to continue this conversation.
Please see my prior response to another commenter, which has more substance behind the point I made, which appears to have gotten lost here. This comment just included the same takeaway from my other one.
First, sorry for calling your article a "take" - that was the wrong word choice and cheapened the work. I've been following Heated since the beginning and applaud your work.
I hear you and applaud the inclusion of indigenous voices and other perspectives in the conversation. But, as you point out, he did try to stop it, including the legal challenge he continued from the prior administration. To me, he did fulfill his promise to do what he could within his power to stop it, even though he was unsuccessful. Upon that being rejected, what other options did he have? Is there precedent for a unilateral action to reject the permits? I'm not clear on MN politics and law so I may be missing something important here, but based on what you included, it sounds like there wasn't another option.
To respond to your last point, I'm in no way advocating for putting politicians on a pedestal or not criticizing them. I just feel like the way this article was written was an unfair assessment of what he tried (but ultimately failed) to do and discounts the progress he's made on fighting climate change.
I hear you. I included the information about his climate record and the rationale for his decision-making so readers like you could potentially come to that conclusion, And you may notice, I never actually said that *I* think Walz should have issued a unilateral decision. I just felt it was important to note that many indigenous Minnesotans think he should have. Sometimes I think we're not used to climate stories that have two legitimate sides. But imo this is one of them.
I understand why these indigenous communities feel betrayed, I really do. I'm also disappointed that this pipeline was allowed to move forward, just as I'm disappointed in all the other oil and gas development the Biden Administration approved. However, I'm deeply concerned about the potential consequences of indigenous leaders advising their communities to not vote for Walz, if that's in fact what is happening (I don't know if any official positions have been announced, I'm simply taking in and trying to process what I read). I wish we had a different election structure here in the US, but the current system is essentially a two party system, like it or not. And with an election this close, choosing not to vote or voting third party is essentially a vote for Trump. We all know how much worse he would be when it comes to oil and gas development. We need every single vote we can get.
I think this is a hugely important article, because you are 100% right that giving the perspective of those who don't get much coverage and their sense of betrayal over an issue important to them, even from a Democrat, is worth covering.
I mean I have my own thoughts on Line 3 and Walz (I think he is awesome lol), but that isn't really worth anything compared to the valuable perspective of Indigenous groups here.
Also I didn't know about the relationship between Walz and Minnesota's Indigenous groups, and I'm curious if in your conversations there has been mention of that relationship translating to the executive branch if he becomes VP? Deb Haaland was seen as a big positive move from Biden on Indigenous issues, but I haven't seen any coverage of how Indigenous groups have rated her work a few years into her job. Again signifying how important coverage like this is, since it is so uncovered.
All the best Emily and Arielle!
Looks like Tim Walz is, in fact, a politician. He's a solid pick, but he'll need to be held accountable like anyone else, esp. on climate.
Quick question concerning this passage:
"for appointing Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe—making her Minnesota's first Native statewide elected official."
Which one is it? Appointed or elected?
I think it's an error in the wording - she was elected as Lt. Governor but would be appointed Governor. She was already the first Native statewide elected official.
Yes. We will fix to make clearer
Thank you so much 😊. By the way, keep up the great work, I thoroughly enjoy reading Heated and you keep me aflot of the environmental information (and disinformation) out there. The time that saves me means a lot to me so you have my continued support (including financially).
Thank you! ❤️
So the awkward wording comes when the text implies that the appointment is "--making her Minnesota's first native statewide elected official."
The appointment didn't do that, she was elected Lt. Gov. already. Am I getting that right? If so, the text is simply wrong. If not, please let me know.
Yeah it’s just not worded correctly. She became first native elected official years back.
Yes, she was already elected Lt. Gov in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, so that made her the first Native statewide elected official.
If she is appointed as Governor, that would make her the first Native Governor of MN, but not the first elected Native Governor - she would need to win an election as a candidate for Governor for that to be true.
I suspect that the awkward wording refers to her being appointed to the role of governor, which is an elected official position.
This is a repeat of the wording, not an answer to my query.
Also, if it is an elected official position, how is it that the person was appointed to it? Do you see what I'm asking here?
Oh wow, that comment about how it would break with checks and balances for Walz to block the construction is a weak cop out. Walz can only block the line because of specific powers given to him by the legislature and we have a long tradition of executive branches legislating on details or writing detailed regulations all around the west. The fact Walz could block the construction doesn’t mean a later governor could allow the construction without environmental review. There’s also no evidence that republicans/fossil fuel interests would show this courtesy to their opponents if the roles were reversed.
Now, there might be arguments that once the lawsuit failed it wasn’t worth spending political capital on blocking the pipeline through executive action. It might even have been a savvy move that allowed him to deliver the other climate wins mentioned. I don’t know if that’s the case since I don’t follow Minnesota politics. It could be and it would be a better excuse than the one given - even though it’s still a betrayal.
In any case it’s a good reminder that climate policy is everywhere and that the most important climate fights are often also incredibly local in nature.
Our Governor has been working hard on supporting climate solutions for our State. However, as part of a strong advocacy group, the Minnesota Divestment Coalition, we have been pushing our State Board of Investment (SBI) to divest from fossil fuels and invest in the clean energy future for many years. Our SBI is made up of four members, including the governor, our secretary of state, the state auditor, and our attorney general. The SBI has failed to take steps to address divestment with the exception of mostly divesting from thermal coal a couple years ago. We continue to push for there to be a more ambitious plan but as of today their plan is only to practice engagement through proxy voting. Their priority continues to only be about getting the highest rate of returns for their pensioners. They are not taking the broader fiduciary responsibility to protect all Minnesotans from the inevitable impact of the climate crisis.
Your climate journalism is essential for those seeking the facts of the issue. Please keep up the good work even if it means pissing off a few people. LFG!
It would be nuts for people to sit out this election. Trump literally offered to get rid of climate laws if the oil industry would give him a billion dollars. He brags constantly about his support for the fossil fuel industry.
So what is the story behind losing the court case? What were the grounds for letting it move forward? Was it a Trump appointee?