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

•••

Are electric vehicles sustainable? Detroit News editorial page editor Nolan Finley says no in his opinion piece reprinted in this paper on April 12 ("EVs may be green, but are they sustainable?"). He praises the CEO of Stellantis (Dodge and Chrysler and many non-U.S. brands) for waving a red flag about the dangers of rushing to electric vehicles (EVs). We will need a lot of lithium; there may not be enough. We will need a lot of cobalt and nickel, too. Oh, my.

Too bad Finley's worries about resources didn't make him consider any facts about them or cause him to reflect on the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels. His purposes were better served by switching to fearmongering about driving becoming a luxury activity limited to the rich and the demise of the American (auto industry's) symbol of freedom — the open road.

If you are interested in the current and accelerating energy transition, don't bother reading Finley's article. The March 22 episode of the podcast "The Energy Transition Show" is about material requirements of the energy transition. These podcasts can be technical, but they are also fact-filled and well referenced.

My main takeaway from Finley's commentary is that our next car will not be a Dodge.

Jim Wolfe Wood, Stillwater

•••

While the motive is admirable, the push for electric vehicles is wrongheaded in many respects.

Starting with charging: In addition to the extreme length of time it takes to charge an EV's battery, there are few places to do it. While there are very smart people laboring to improve these obstacles, it's going to take decades before systems are developed and robust enough to approach the convenience of the present fossil-fueled vehicles. Also, the living situations of people must be considered. The vast majority of the nation's housing is already in place. A great many people (in urban areas in particular) live in apartment buildings where plugging in one's automobile to recharge is simply not practical, and, given the current condition of the country's housing infrastructure, conditions are not going to change anytime soon. Perhaps more crucially, the present configuration of the nation's electrical grid is not sufficient to cope with the complete electrification of the country's transportation (as well as many of our basic needs), and that too is unlikely to change anytime soon.

We should also be wary of the sources for the materials that are necessary for the fabrication of the batteries that EVs need. The extraction and refining of those minerals is an environmentally filthy process on a par with the production of fossil fuels, subtracting from any environmental benefit of driving EVs. In addition, many of the deposits of these minerals are located in environmentally sensitive areas or in jurisdictions openly hostile to the U.S. The geopolitics surrounding the procurement of these minerals has the potential to draw the U.S. into conflicts much like those of the past involving fossil fuels. I see no benefit, environmentally or otherwise, of driving an EV if the country is embroiled in constant conflicts at any level.

It occurs to me that our efforts would be better spent focused on the problems involving the clean production of hydrogen fuel to scale. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and its extraction would have no geopolitical consequences. It may be shipped and stored much like our current fossil fuels, which means that the rudiments for a distribution infrastructure are already in place in the form of our current gas stations, and it may be dispensed similarly. Perhaps most important, it burns clean. In atmospheric air, hydrogen combustion yields a small amount of nitrogen oxides with water vapor.

I am just a layman, and I do believe that the burning of fossil fuels needs to be abated, but, given the present complications, EVs (as envisioned) are not the answer.

Gordon B. Abel, Minneapolis

I live in northeast Minneapolis and take transit everywhere. Many of my friends do the same; and we all choose transit for a variety of reasons — we like the community of transit, it's cheaper than owning a car, it's more convenient. And no matter where we live in the metro area, we should be able to safely and efficiently get to all the people and places we want to go. Everyone should be able to make that choice, but we have underinvested in transit for so long that they can't. We also know that we need a transit system that meets the reality of the challenges we face with climate change. If we want to make individual decisions that are better (reducing vehicle miles traveled, less reliance on single car ownership), we need institutional opportunities that allow us to make better choices. And that means fully funding public transit.

We need the Legislature to pass the seven-county metro area sales tax that is in the transportation omnibus bill; one-time financing from the surplus will not keep our transit system running. Safe, efficient and convenient transit is fully funded transit!

Amity Foster, Minneapolis

While former President Donald Trump was only indicted on March 30, I am already weary of the victimhood-style rhetoric of those supporting him. Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared on Fox News almost in tears asking that Republicans funnel money to Trump as he continues his 2024 bid for president. I do not know that I have ever seen a political party more willing to cash in on the numerous legal woes of its assumed leader than MAGA Republicans have been, including Trump himself.

During these times of high inflation, I cannot help but think of the good donations to Trump could do if they were only redirected toward causes that actually help to sew together more tightly the threads of community. What could a million donations of $24 accomplish, for example, if those funds were given in support of the local food bank or to assist the needs of the currently unhoused or to wipe out the school lunch debts of struggling parents in the state of Minnesota and beyond?

Even were Trump to somehow win another presidential election, I know full well that these are not issues about which he cares or to which he is committed. The cause he cares most about stares back at him in a gilded-framed mirror every morning. That is a cause I could never support.

Jenny Kuderer, Goodview, Minn.

The debate over the change in language to celebrate autism in Minnesota seems misplaced and a tedious waste of time ("Why the governor's proclamation on autism made me wince," Opinion Exchange, April 10). Awareness/acceptance. Tomato/tomato. Words are fine, but as the rock band The Who sings, "Let's See Action."

As someone with a grown son with Asperger's, a high-functioning form of autism, and as someone who himself regularly displays autism tendencies, I created "The Neurodiversity Challenge" years ago to encourage businesses, schools and government to work harder to understand the value many of people on the autism spectrum and others whose brains are neurodiverse (dyslexia, ADHD, etc.) bring to our society. Want to hire more qualified employees? Actively recruit neurodiverse individuals. Want to boost declining enrollment in higher education? Actively recruit neurodiverse individuals.

As diversity, equity and inclusion efforts continue to expand, neurodiversity has generally been ignored. That needs to change. Neurodiversity is nonpartisan. If the governor and others are serious about promoting the values autism and other forms of neurodiversity, create an action plan that doesn't cost taxpayers millions but instead rewards companies and schools that embrace the different talents neurodiverse individuals bring to so many walks of life. The opportunity for Minnesota to be a great leader in neurodiversity exists. Who's going to recognize this and take advantage of it?

Rob Hahn, St. Paul