In an attempt to encourage a congressman to prioritize the future of my generation, I submitted a question at Jim Hagedorn’s recent town hall. When I asked what he was doing to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, he responded by saying that he doesn’t “believe in man-made climate change.” He did, however, ask the audience, “What would you like done?”

After I suggested actual solutions for improving sustainability, Hagedorn said that there is “no path; we can’t get there.” He then asked, “Even if we do everything you say, how are you going to convince the rest of the world to do that?”

Some in the audience responded, “Rejoin the Paris Agreement!” He ignored this suggestion and asked, “Are you going to go to war with them if they don’t?” This is clearly a dismissive statement meant to avoid the discussion of actual solutions.

Hagedorn made another inappropriate comment when asked about fuel standards, saying, “We only have 12 years, ma’am. It doesn’t matter.” Here, he alludes to a UN report stating that the world has 12 years before the effects of climate change become irreversible. His suggestion that, because the earth is already on fire, we might as well add fuel, displays a level of fatalism I don’t want to see in a congressperson.

Throughout his response, Hagedorn stated six times that he saw “no path” for protecting the environment and improving sustainability, and he clearly has no intention of finding one. This leaves constituents with the responsibility to vote in 2020 for a candidate with a vision and plan for the future, and Jim Hagedorn, the man with “no path,” is not that candidate.

Ava Corey-Gruenes

Albert Lea