Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, soon to be coronated as the Democratic Party’s official nominee for Vice President of the United States, has stirred enthusiasm amongst the climate movement. Since taking office in 2019, Walz signed into law a bill requiring utilities to provide 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2040 and aligned the state’s climate change policies closely with those of another environmentally progressive state, California.
At the same time, Walz allowed an oil pipeline to be built under his watch — and that choice now is haunting him. Specifically, Line 3, an oil pipeline constructed by the Canadian multinational Embridge, primarily built in Minnesota, was fiercely opposed by both environmentalist groups and Indigenous groups. Many protestors were targeted by police, who were funded with millions funneled to them by Endbridge. A militarized police crackdown followed and hundreds of “water protectors” were arrested. Yet critics say Walz did nothing to stand in the way of its construction, which was completed in 2021. (Both the Harris campaign and the Walz office did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.)
Stevie O’Hanlon, communications director and co-founder of the climate change activist organization Sunrise Movement, captured this ambivalence when speaking with Salon.
“Tim Walz helped pass one of the most ambitious clean energy bills in the country, with just a one seat Democratic majority,” O’Hanlon said. “In total, he helped pass 40 climate initiatives in the 2023 session. He’s been successful at getting things done on climate because he’s effectively pitched it as a way to improve the lives of working people. Harris and Walz have an opportunity to be a historic administration for climate change.”
Then there is a “but.”
“Walz’s lack of action to stop the Line 3 pipeline and to stand with Indigenous leaders protesting the project is disappointing,” O’Hanlon said. “The science is clear. If we are going to stop catastrophic climate change, we need to stop building new oil and gas infrastructure.”
Laura Bishop, a former commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency who worked under Gov. Walz during his first term, told Salon that she also believes Walz has a “strong” environmental record and has been a “climate champion.” She singled out the money he allocated for infrastructure, advancing electric vehicles and improving agricultural practices. Bishop explained Walz’s support for Line 3 by pointing out that it had been in planning before the Democrat even took office.
“This was an ongoing project that had been vetted by numerous state agencies and federal agencies,” Bishop said. “The pipeline had corroded and was leaking, and a new pipeline was safer than the old ones. So he supported that as well as a vigorous environmental review process. And his general approach on all of these projects, for which this had several different permits — not just under the pollution control agency, but also other state and federal agencies — he really looks at all these permits needed to follow the law, follow the process, and follow the science as well as be transparent and have a rigorous public input and analysis to ensure that these projects protect our resources.”
This included reaching out to members of Ojibwe tribe, who protested the pipeline both for its environmental impact and as part of a larger history of anti-Native American genocide.
“As someone who has worked in Minnesota, for both me and Gov. Walz, he knows that our natural resources need to be protected,” Bishop said. “It’s a part of our state, and being as well as how climate change is an existential threat, he really has led and instructed our agencies to work across his administration to find ways to address the climate crisis.”
As for the concerns of Indigenous activists, one expert told Indian Country Today that local industry has managed to win over enough Native American leaders that they do not need to convince all of them.
“Enbridge leaders know there’s no way for them to win the hearts and minds of all the Native people but they don’t have to,” Anton Treuer, professor of Ojibwe language at Bemidji State University in Minnesota, told Indian Country Today. “If they can win over just enough to clear enough hurdles to get the next easement or next little contract or permit approved, they know they’ll be able to get their work done.”
Gina Sutherland, senior advisor in corporate communications and media relations at Enbridge, told Salon that the Line 3 project as being constructed “under the most comprehensive regulatory framework in the history of Minnesota resulting in the issuance of over 60 federal, state, local and tribal approvals. These approvals included the strictest environmental requirements in state history.”
Sunderland said that the corporate leaders behind Line 3 consulted 30 tribes along with the Army Corps of Engineers and incorporated a Tribal Cultural Resource Survey led by the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
“Fond du Lac employed tribal cultural experts who walked the full route identifying and recording significant cultural resources to be avoided,” Sutherland said. “As a result of this survey, 60 tribally significant cultural locations were identified and recommended for further avoidance, mitigation treatments or Tribal monitoring, all of which were adopted into project plans.” She added that the economic impact of the pipeline has been $5 billion, creating thousands of jobs and stimulating millions in local construction spending.
“Enbridge spent well over $450 million specifically on training and hiring Native workers and with Native-owned businesses in Minnesota,” Sutherland said.
Line 3 isn’t the only reason Walz has lost points with environmental advocates. As a representative, he also voted to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and has been criticized for allowing mining projects near waterways that tribes and conservationists say should be protected. Clearly, Walz has a mixed record on the environment, but most of his more controversial choices were made long enough ago that some people see potential for him to follow the science when crafting policy in the future.
“When you’re governor, clearly you’re going to take on a broader set of issues as priorities. Climate change is no exception,” Trent Bauserman, who worked in the Obama White House and as climate adviser to former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, told E&E News. “I think he has evolved as his role has evolved and the issue of climate change has evolved.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.