The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled against Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy on a global warming case Tuesday, but in the big picture, the ruling improves environmental review in Minnesota.

For the first time, a Minnesota court accepted the idea that the state’s environmental review law extends to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

“No one likes to lose, of course,” said MCEA Legal Director Kevin Reuther. “But sometimes we can nudge the process along and achieve our main goals even when we don’t achieve 100 percent success. From now on, major projects in Minnesota need to analyze and try to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. That’s progress.”

In the case against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Steel, (now known as Essar Steel) MCEA contended that the department had done an inadequate job of looking at the global warming pollution from the proposed $1.6 billion mining and steel mill near Nashwauk.

The steel company argued that Minnesota’s environmental review law didn’t extend to global warming and it had no obligation to study the issue. The DNR argued that what it had done, including a carbon footprint and general information about climate change, was sufficient given the “state-of-the-art” of climate science.

The three judge panel ruled unanimously that the department’s look at the carbon dioxide pollution was sufficient. 

“Back when DNR started work on this steel plant, climate science wasn’t as developed as it is today,” Reuther said. “Nearly every day we learn more about the environmental and human health consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. And everything we learn reinforces the need to reduce emissions.”

Reuther, in the lower court and Scott Strand before the court of appeals, had argued that the DNR did not adequately looked at the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and power generation. The court disagreed and said there was enough information in the record to indicate the agency had looked at the global warming emissions. The court also agreed with DNR that at the time of the review, in 2006-07, incomplete or unavailable information prevented the agency from analyzing the impacts global warming pollution would have on the environment.

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy takes some satisfaction from how its involvement improved the Minnesota Steel environmental impact statement and the effect the case will have on other large projects. MCEA has been at the forefront in demanding consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental review.

So, when the draft Minnesota Steel review was released in February 2007, Reuther met with DNR officials and pointed out there was nothing about global warming. As a result, they added a carbon footprint document in the appendix.

In July 2007, MCEA submitted comments saying the impact statement did not address the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and power generation from the proposed project. The DNR responded to those objections with more information as part of the record before the commissioner signed off on the environmental impact statement.