Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In "A home for eagles ... but high-rises, too?" neighbor Wendy Neurer claimed to be a "steward for the environment" for her opposition to a housing development in her St. Paul neighborhood. This type of thinking fails to consider the counterfactual to denser, urban development. If we do not build housing in our cities, the demand for homes does not dissipate. Instead, residents are forced to look for housing farther away from our city centers. As a result, more development is forced onto exurban greenfields, destroying far more natural habitat than a single eagle's nest. This also puts people farther away from amenities like jobs, groceries and entertainment, requiring them to drive further and more frequently. With these driving patterns comes extensive carbon emissions and terrible long-term consequences for the environment.

It is time to rethink this narrow conception of environmentalism. We can no longer afford to furiously protect our immediate environments without considering how our decisions affect greater environmental systems. This starts with allowing new places for neighbors to live in our own urban neighborhoods.

Zak Yudhishthu, St. Paul

Ramesh Ponnuru's Oct. 11 commentary claims that eliminating the filibuster would lead to passage of an extreme version of the majority party's agenda ("Conservatives should be worried about November," Opinion Exchange). I doubt this would be the case. Crafting legislation to get full support from a diverse party would require compromise. And without the filibuster, members of the minority party would have more incentive to work to improve legislation rather than just block it. Voters should be able to expect that the party with the elected majority has a fair chance to pass its program.

Rudy Brynolfson, Minneapolis

In their Oct. 8 opinion piece, Republican House members Eric Lucero and Mary Franson make several errors of fact and repeat inaccurate Republican memes about using environmental, social and governance (ESG) measures in investment decisions ("Politics has no place in public investments").

Minnesota's State Board of Investment (SBI) consists of the governor, secretary of state, attorney general and state auditor. The members, however, do not sit at a table and decide which stocks the state funds should sell and which the funds should buy. In fact, the SBI oversees an executive director, who in turn oversees a staff of investment professionals who implement board policy. All policy changes are first reviewed by the Investment Advisory Council, which consists primarily of experienced investment professionals.

When the SBI purchases stock in a company, the company is not "rewarded by receiving more investment dollars," as Lucero and Franson state. In most cases, the money goes to another investor who decided to sell those shares when the SBI was buying. The company rarely benefits directly from a stock purchase.

Lucero's and Franson's worst error, though, is the suggestion that using ESG metrics violates the state's fiduciary responsibility. Companies that incorporate the risk of global climate change in their business decisionmaking outperform their competitors over time. The same is true for companies with better ways of dealing with workers, neighbors and Indigenous communities and for companies that put in place stronger corporate governance policies. Those are the broad categories included in ESG measures.

Accurately assessing the riskiness of potential investments, including with ESG measures, and basing decisions on that assessment is a clear exercise of fiduciary responsibility, not a detraction from it. Republican efforts to prevent SBI from using ESG measures would actually introduce political considerations into the investment process and harm the hardworking Minnesotans whose retirement funds SBI oversees.

Will Thomas, Marshall, Minn.

The writer is an accounting professor.

•••

Being a fiduciary requires being bound both legally and ethically to act in the other's best interest. Reps. Lucero and Franson need to take a fresh look at the situation facing us regarding fossil fuel investments. A responsible caretaker of our pension funds would look at history. In 1980, oil and gas was 29% of the S&P 500. Today it's about 4%. In 1980, seven of the top 10 S&P 500 were oil companies. Exxon fell off the top 10 three years ago, and now there are none left. Exxon was the Dow Jones' oldest member when it was dropped two years ago.

A responsible investor would look past the current situation influenced by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine and see the future where the menace of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels continues to increase, the cost of solar and wind continues to decline and the wisdom of more investment in the development of renewables becomes ever more apparent. Imagine how different the situation would be today regarding Putin's war in Ukraine and gas prices if we had begun intensely investing in developing renewable energy when we should have 25 years ago. The growing awareness of this has fueled the growing divestment movement in recent years and caused investment institutions to rethink investments. As the menace of global warming grows, Minnesotans should not someday be left holding the bag.

Steven Smith, Minneapolis

•••

The two Republican Minnesota House members who wrote the Oct. 8 counterpoint seem to be asserting that if the SBI considers the risks related to climate change when assessing investments it would be "political," "social engineering," part of a "culture war." They equate recognizing the reality of climate change with promoting a political agenda.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are living with the consequences of the climate-fueled hurricanes and flooding that devastated Florida and Puerto Rico, the flooding this summer in Eastern Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, West Virginia and Nevada, among other states, and of course the wildfires and droughts. The effects of climate change are painfully real to them, not political.

Throughout their piece the writers provide no evidence that ignoring climate change will improve the return on investments or that weighing the risk of climate change will result in poor returns. Their argument is heavy on conservative buzzwords but lacking facts.

As a former government employee who receives a pension, I am very pleased that the SBI is not ignoring the risks posed by climate change. Climate change is real and will certainly affect the performance of some investments. It will also drastically affect the quality of life on this planet for our children, our grandchildren and for generations to come.

Mary Anderson, Minneapolis

I just read the obituary for Sheila Livingston in the Oct. 11 edition and feel compelled to share my many experiences with her ("Sheila Livingston, Guthrie educator and humanitarian"). Annually, my senior high school students and I attended a Guthrie production and Sheila was always my "go to" person. Her love for young people and her belief that theater opens doors for all ages were evident when she personally interacted with students. Sheila's enthusiasm, expertise and warmth made her one of my favorite Guthrie employees. She was a star!

Marlene Delfs, Rochester