On behalf of Climate Generation, an organization in Minnesota working with high school youth and educators, we are expressing our disappointment in your lobbying efforts at the State Capitol to stop HF3577/SF3561 – the Packaging Waste and Reduction Act. At Climate Generation, the students of our Youth Environmental Activist (YEA!) high school network have been advocating for sustainable solutions that not only reduce waste, but stop feeding harmful pollutants, like the HERC trash burner in North Minneapolis.
General Mills, Cargill, and 3M are all members of AMERIPEN, whose mission is to “Be the leading voice for the packaging industry, using science to inspire, create and advocate for sustainable solutions for the packaging value chain.” One would hope that you stay true to this mission in Minnesota, a state in which your companies call home, and welcome legislation that would reduce unnecessary packaging and the associated costs of added packaging on our communities.
The efforts your lobbyists are putting in to stop HF3577/SF3561 tell community members that you don’t support a bill that:
- Prioritizes Waste Reduction: We cannot recycle and compost our way out of this packaging crisis; we must prioritize reduction. The bill requires producers to meet targets for source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, and post-consumer recycled content. These targets are enforced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
- Drives Packaging Redesign: Packaging producers will be charged based on the amount and type of packaging used. The less packaging a company uses, the less they will pay. There are also financial incentives for companies to reduce unnecessary packaging and use nontoxic, reusable, recyclable and compostable materials.
- Creates Equitable & Free Access to Recycling: Recycling is a growing financial burden for local governments and individual families. The program will provide free recycling for all Minnesotans, by requiring producers and profiters of packaging waste to reimburse local governments for the cost of these programs, rather than local taxpayers.
- Supports Quality Jobs: The program ensures that priority for service provider contracts is given to Minnesota companies that provide good jobs, strong safety standards, and quality services. Additionally, investments in reuse and recycling infrastructure will create new jobs across our state. The MPCA estimates that fully investing in recycling will result in over 15,000 new jobs.
- Strengthens Minnesota’s Economy: Businesses are struggling to source the metal, paper, plastic, and glass needed to make new packaging and products. Meanwhile, each year Minnesota buries and burns over 1 million tons of recyclables worth an estimated $143 million. By recycling more, we can create a reliable domestic supply of recycled metal, paper, plastic, and glass to make new products. Additionally, the recycled content requirements provide stability to, traditionally unstable, commodity markets.
Research tells us that packaging waste and printed paper make up 40% of our waste stream in Minnesota, and global plastic production is expected to double over the next two decades.
Not only are we asking that you support the efforts of passing the Packaging Waste and Reduction Act, but that you respect the science behind it. Your stance against this bill to save a few dollars is spreading a harmful message that we aren’t in a waste crisis, when in fact we are. This harmful messaging is in alignment with the fossil fuel industry and similar to the type of messaging spread by ExxonMobil, who also tried minimizing the impacts of climate change and the role they play in it. Moreover, these policy changes only represent single‒digit percentage increase to your companies in additional supply costs — a small price to pay in support of your consumers’ and our planet’s health considering each of your profits were in the billions in 2023.
Minnesota is not the first state to consider this legislation. In fact, several other states have already implemented similar policies, as has the entire European Union. Your corporations are already abiding by these rules in other places, so why are you fighting it here, in the state in which your employees and their families work and live? The policies represented in these bills align with the sustainability priorities of each of your companies, and do not require these changes to be implemented until 2033. In the case of General Mills, this is three years later than the company has already committed to publicly. The state’s legislation also allows for a waiver should any company show they will not be able to source the necessary materials through global supply chains by the 2033 deadline.
As we continue to tackle the climate and waste crisis, collaboration becomes essential in finding effective solutions. We hope you will join us in this conversation and take the crucial steps towards improving our state’s recycling, supporting local governments, and investing more services to our communities.

B. serves as Policy Manager for Climate Generation. They are a Minneapolis Southsider and first generation graduate of the University of Minnesota. B. has several years experience in community organizing and policy work and is excited to bring their experiences in voting rights and housing advocacy to Climate Generation’s climate justice work. They believe in investing in our young leaders to build a better future and sustain movement work and have centered the voices of young people in previous campaigns. B. is a participant in the Wilder Foundation’s Community Equity Program, a nine-month political leadership cohort-based learning journey for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color community leaders and change makers.
The post An open letter to AMERIPEN and the leadership of 3M, General Mills, and Cargill appeared first on Climate Generation.
An open letter to AMERIPEN and the leadership of 3M, General Mills, and Cargill
Climate Change
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.
Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
Climate Change
America’s Dirty Secret
An interview with author Catherine Coleman Flowers.
The fourth installment in our special Earth Day series
Climate Change
With love: Love to the researchers
When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever.
David Ritter
So often in life, our most authentic moments of joy are the result of years of shared effort, and the culmination of a kind of deep faith in what is possible.
A few weeks ago, I had the honour of being in Canberra, along with some fellow environmentalists and scientists, to witness the enactment of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 by our federal parliament.
This was the moment that the Global Ocean Treaty—one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time—was given force through a domestic Australian law.
If you are part of the great Greenpeace family, you will know exactly why this was such a huge deal. The high seas make up around 60 per cent of the Earth’s surface and for too long, they have been subjected to open plunder. Now, for the first time in human history, there is an international instrument that enables the creation of massive high seas sanctuaries within which the ocean can be protected. This is a monumental collective achievement by Greenpeace and all the other groups who have campaigned for high seas marine sanctuaries for many years.
But as momentous as the ratification was, the parliamentary proceedings were distinctly lacking in drama or fanfare–so much so, that Labor MP backbencher Renee Coffey felt the need to gesture to those of us in the gallery with a grin, to indicate that the process was over and done.
The modesty of the moment had me thinking about the decades of quiet dedication by many hands that are invariably required to achieve great social change. In particular, I found myself thinking about researchers. So much of the expert academic work that underpins achievements like the Global Ocean Treaty is slow, painstaking, solitary—and often out of sight.
I think of the persistence and tenacity of researchers as an expression of love, founded in an authentic sense of wonder and curiosity about the world—and frequently linked to a deep ethical desire to protect that source of wonderment.

In 2007, one of the very first things I was given to read after starting with Greenpeace as an oceans campaigner in London was a report entitled Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves. Specific physical sensations can tend to stick in the mind from periods of personally significant transitions, and the tactile reminiscence of holding the thin cardboard of the modest grey cover of that report is deeply embedded in my memory. I suspect I still even have that original copy in a box somewhere.
Written by a team of scientists led by Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist from the University of York, the Roadmap provided the first scientifically informed vision of a large-scale global network of high seas marine sanctuaries, protecting the world’s oceans at scale. Of course, twenty years ago, this idea felt more like utopian science fiction, because there was no Global Oceans Treaty. But what seemed fanciful at the start of this century is now possible-–and I have every confidence the creation of large scale high seas marine sanctuaries will now happen through the application of ongoing campaigning effort—but we would never have gotten this far without the dedication of researchers, driven by their love of the oceans. And now here we are, with the ability for humanity to legally protect the high seas for the first time.
Campaigning and research so often work hand in hand like this: the one identifying the need and the solutions; the other driving the change. Because in a world of powerful vested interests, good science alone doesn’t shift decision makers—that takes activism and campaigning—but equally, there must be a basis of evidence and reason on which to build our public advocacy.
So, I want to take a moment to think with love and appreciation for everyone who has contributed to making this possible. I’ve never met the team of scientists who authored the original Roadmap, so belatedly but sincerely, then, to Leanne Mason, Julie P. Hawkins, Elizabeth Masden, Gwilym Rowlands, Jenny Storey and Anna Swift—and to every other researcher and scientist who has been involved in demonstrating why the Global Oceans Treaty has been so badly needed over the years—thank you for your commitment and devotion.
And to everyone out there who continues to believe that evidence and truth matter, and that our magnificent, fragile world deserves our respectful curiosity and study as an expression of our awe and enchantment, thank you for your conscientiousness.
When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever. You have Greenpeace’s deepest gratitude. Every day, we build on the foundations of your work and dedication. Thank you.
Q & A
I have been asked several times in recent weeks what the ongoing war means for the renewable energy transition in Australia.
While some corners of the fossil fuel lobby and the politicians captured by these vested interests have been very quick to use this crisis to call for more oil exploration and gas pipelines, the reality is that the current energy crisis has revealed the commonsense case for renewable energy.
As many, including climate and energy minister Chris Bowen have noted, renewable energy is affordable, inexhaustible, and sovereign—its supply cannot be blocked by warmongers or conflict. People intuitively know this; it’s why sales of electric cars have climbed to an all-time high, it’s why interest in rooftop solar and batteries has skyrocketed in recent months.
The reality is that oil and gas are to blame for much of the cost-of-living pain we’re feeling right now; fossil fuels are the disease, not the cure. If Australia were further along in our renewable energy transition and EV uptake, we would be much better insulated from petrol and gas price shocks and supply chain disruptions.
Yes, we need short-term solutions to ease the very real cost-of-living pressures that Australian communities and workers are facing as a result of fuel shortages. While replacement supplies is no doubt a valid step for now—Greenpeace is also backing taxes on the war profits of gas corporations to fund relief measures for Australians—in the long term, we will only get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel dependency and price volatility if we break free from fossil fuels and accelerate progress towards an energy system built on 100% renewable energy, backed by storage.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
