Thank you, Star Tribune, for keeping us informed on climate change and the environment. Like many Minnesotans, I value our seasons, wildlife, waterways, woods and meadows. Unfortunately, the outdoor world has changed noticeably in the past 50 years: Winters are warmer, especially in northern Minnesota; ice-out times are earlier and the snow season is shorter; summers are wetter with frequent mega-rain events; maple trees are moving north and tamaracks are dying; moose populations are dwindling; lynx and bird populations are shifting. I'm heartbroken that my grandchildren will live in a land more like Kansas than that of my childhood.
With all that is happening right here, why did a third of Minnesotans in a 2019 Yale survey refuse to agree that global warming is real and almost half refuse to say that it is largely due to mankind? Earlier this year, 50 of our Minnesota House members voted against a declaration that human activities are a key cause of climate change. How can so many believe that they know better than the majority of the world's experts who've devoted their professional lives to studying climate science?
Please keep the environmental coverage coming! It's evident we need more reminders and education. Those of my generation have been poor stewards of this Earth, even though the alarm was sounded decades ago. Passing the problem on for future generations to fix is unethical. It's just not an option.
Susan Wehrenberg, Apple Valley
FOOD STAMPS
Work requirements don't help
The advocates serving Minnesotans who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are absolutely correct that tightening work requirements for this program "will make it difficult for those who need help to get it and put even more pressure on food shelves and other community programs" ("Feds to tighten rules for food aid," Dec. 5).
One key reason for this is that work requirements have proved to be ineffective. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Cutting off basic assistance doesn't appear to help individuals get jobs, as research into the SNAP time limit, and similar rules in Medicaid, demonstrates." Further, "Rigid work requirements in government assistance programs have a well-established record of fueling deep poverty."
Nevertheless the Agriculture Department has pursued this and other restrictions on SNAP eligibility. This is despite the fact that these same restrictions were rejected on a bipartisan basis in last year's farm bill and that, during the comment period on this proposed rule on SNAP work requirements, the department received more than 140,000 public comments, which were overwhelmingly negative.
While it is late in the game, there is still time to act. Advocates need to let their elected representatives know the consequences this new rule will have for their constituents and urge their opposition to it.
Martin Fergus, Crystal
• • •
My friends Colleen Moriarty from Hunger Solutions Minnesota and Allison O'Toole from Second Harvest Heartland were absolutely correct to express concern about tightened eligibility for SNAP. Organizations that are alleviating hunger across Minnesota will need to work even harder to absorb the effects of federal policy changes like this one. Loaves and Fishes will keep our doors open and serve fresh plates to anyone for any reason — whether that need is obvious to someone looking in or not. If you find yourself asking where the compassion is in this kind of policy shift, I know where to find it: at every community meal dining site and food shelf in Minnesota.