If as a society we are going to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, we need to move from fossil fuels to renewable, lower greenhouse gas energy sources like solar, wind and hydro. But all such energy development projects still need to demonstrate that their benefits outweigh their environmental and social costs.

I am on the fence regarding Central Maine Power’s proposed powerline through Maine to bring Hydro-Quebec electricity to Massachusetts customers because CMP has yet to demonstrate that their project’s overall benefits exceed its costs. Will CMP’s claimed reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, which would also benefit Maine, outweigh the collateral damage in Maine and to the Innu and Cree native peoples of Labrador and northern Quebec?

In my opinion, the benefit-to-cost scale probably tips in favor of CMP’s project if indeed it results in a substantial net reduction in emissions in the U.S. and Canada. However, it is still unclear if this project would reduce greenhouse gases any more than the development of new natural gas electric generation in Massachusetts would. My healthy skepticism of CMP’s proposed project is reinforced by the fact that CMP lobbied successfully against 2019 legislation that would have authorized Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection to do an independent evaluation of the project’s impact on emissions.

For these reasons I hope enough signatures will be submitted to the secretary of state for this project’s approval to be decided in a referendum by voters. The burden of proof would then be clearly placed on CMP to demonstrate to Mainers that their project will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions in North America, and that there are no alternatives which achieve comparable reductions with fewer negative impacts.

 

George Seel

Belgrade

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Sign stealing scandal much ado about nothing

Next »

Put all impeachment evidence out there