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

•••

In our recycle-compost-landfill conundrum, we all lose out, paying the price in hauling fees and costs to the environment ("Minnesota's biggest landfill may get bigger," Dec. 3). The complexity and bounty of product manufacturing, selling and shipping make waste disposal problems exceedingly frustrating. Our communities — consumers, manufacturers, and trash removal services — bear an enormous, trash-heavy burden. Yes, we bring our own bags to the store, we re-use, we recycle. It's a start, we keep saying. But why are always stuck at the beginning of this problem?

Trash to landfills includes an inordinate amount of product packaging, my particular bugaboo. As consumers, we can force a manufacturer's hand by not buying a certain product due to packaging issues or by not hiring a hauling service that has not proven its recycling efforts. However, making such choices requires accurate information, which currently is often lacking, confusing or inconsistent. For example, how do I know what a hauler is separating, selling or dumping? How do I make sense of the myriad packaging types that may or may not be recycled, that may or may not be sold to a buyer who can repurpose and resell it? Where do I find an alternative product tied up in twine instead of enshrouded in cardboard or hard plastic?

I am confused by recycling and other waste issues, and even though I consult my county's and my hauler's websites, I still have a lot of questions. Can we require businesses and households to abide by regulations? Do manufacturers already pay for package disposal? If the landfill forces haulers to abide by its rules and they don't, should the hauler be penalized? If the hauler and recycling center force customers to abide by their rules and they don't, should the individual customer be penalized for the amount of time it takes to get that household's refuse landfill-ready?

I hope we will be able to reduce the complexity of the solution so individuals will have an easier time complying with regulations that do exist. I don't have answers. But I only see a way out of this if all the players upstream and downstream have provided accessible, complete and accurate information. That's what I need to do my part, which should include much more than answering "Paper or plastic?" with "I brought my own bag."

Marie Ward, West St. Paul

•••

Yikes, the metro area produces about one ton of trash per resident each year? We have a trash crisis! Minnesota's largest landfill is set to get bigger even as the state tries to cut waste.

Most of us throw away our trash and never think about it again. Unfortunately, a few communities bear the burden of our trash. North Minneapolis breathes the fumes from the garbage burner, and Inver Grove Heights lives with a landfill in their backyard. They are reminded of trash and its pollution daily.

I wonder, how much of that trash is plastic, plastic that could leach toxic chemicals into the landfill for hundreds of years? Plastic is one of the greatest environmental and health issues of our century. We have a trash and a plastic crisis. What are we to do when plastic packaging surrounds everything we purchase? The producers of plastic are responsible for the production of so much plastic packaging, and they need to be held responsible. If producers had to help taxpayers pay for landfills and recycling, they might create more sustainable packaging products.

Our throwaway lifestyle is easy but not manageable for the future. There are some solutions to all our waste. We need more reuse options. Remember the glass Coca-Cola bottles we brought back to the store? What about reusable containers for all the takeout food purchases? My favorite, which already exists, is to visit your local food coop and fill your own containers.

Also, you can make a big difference in your trash by composting your food waste. Composting has become much easier as more communities add options for their residents.

One ton of trash per person a year? We can do better.

Becky Wardell Gaertner, Minneapolis

After watching the fourth Republican presidential debate on NewsNation, I am astounded by how former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was the only firm Republican primary candidate on stage who would defend democracy according to four criteria proposed by Harvard Profs. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of "How Democracies Die."

First, supporters of democracy must call out and expel undemocratic extremists from their own ranks. Christie did that in calling out former President Donald Trump's lies and attempts to overthrow the election results.

Second, candidates claiming to support democracy must sever ties with groups that engage in antidemocratic behavior. None of the candidates on stage spoke out against political forces in the Republican Party that endanger our democracy. They are silent out of expediency and fear of not attracting voters.

Third, leaders favoring democracy unambiguously condemn political violence and other undemocratic behavior. No candidate on stage mentioned the fact of the Jan. 6 insurrection carried out by MAGA supporters and allied groups who engaged in rioting, vandalism ($30 million in repairs and security measures), assaults, attempted bombing, obstruction of official proceedings and four deaths. By remaining silent in the face of violent attacks, these presidential candidates undermine the security of our republic.

Fourth, as needed, leadership must join forces with rival pro-democratic parties to isolate and defeat antidemocratic extremists. Gov. Christie and former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney appear open to this fourth criteria and to understand how we are at a crossroads: The electorate must decide to acknowledge our current political crisis with democracy, or cease to be a democracy at all.

Julie Holmen, Minneapolis

•••

Despite my antipathy to Trump, I think all of the hand-wringing about his possible second term is overblown. Trump doesn't actually care deeply about anything but getting re-elected so he can brag about that and be the world's center of attention for four more years — and to help his chances of avoiding prison.

Mike Tronnes, Minneapolis

The thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. However, the one thing all people of faith should constantly keep in mind is that every time — every time — religion and government get mixed together, religion loses. Religion quickly adopts the ethics, morality and goals of government. Government does not adopt the values and aims of religion. That has been true from the church "reforms" of Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell's Puritan revolution and even the Taliban.

There are two reasons for separation of church and state in America. One is to make sure one religion does not have authority over other religions. The second reason is to protect religion from simply becoming government. If you value your religion and want to see it thrive in the future, do everything you can to prevent it from asserting political power and losing its faith.

Gary L. Brisbin, Fridley