Minnesota Senate Bill SF4910

Minnesota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/13/24
• Refer: 3/13/24

Caption

Climate-change adaption costs study appropriation

Impact

The study mandated by SF4910 will focus on estimating costs related to various climate hazards such as flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, by projecting impacts in the years 2040, 2060, 2080, and 2100. It aims to evaluate how these hazards will affect the state's natural and built environments, thus revealing the potential long-term implications for public health and economic stability in Minnesota. This information will be crucial for policymakers to allocate appropriate resources and develop strategies that enhance resilience against climate disruptions.

Summary

SF4910 is a bill aimed at appropriating funds for a study on climate change adaptation costs within the state of Minnesota. This bill highlights the need for comprehensive research on the projected costs of implementing measures necessary to mitigate the impacts of climate change as outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessments. This legislative action underscores the state's commitment to understanding and addressing the financial implications of climate-related challenges to ensure proactive governance in the face of environmental threats.

Reporting

The bill also stipulates that the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency must submit a report to the legislative committees by February 1, 2025. This report will summarize the findings of the study and assess costs in a manner that informs future legislative decisions on climate-related legislation. The integration with tools like the Minnesota Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool is an example of how data can be leveraged to support informed legislative action.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the funding allocation and the specific methodologies employed in the study. Stakeholders from various sectors, including environmental advocacy groups, business owners, and public health representatives, could have differing opinions regarding the prioritization of climate issues versus immediate economic needs. Critics may argue about the utilization of funds, while proponents will advocate for long-term investments to safeguard the environment and public welfare.