A recent Press Herald editorial (“Perfection is the enemy of our environment,” April 14) was itself “concerning and frustrating,” as the lead paragraph expressed. The arguments and accusations expressed in the editorial failed to appreciate the real issues at stake, including the motives of numerous participants in these discussions.
But first, let’s remember the history behind current discussions about locating the proposed offshore wind facility on Penobscot Bay, beginning with a 1971 proposed oil refinery for Sears Island, followed by nuclear and coal power plants, a cargo port proposal that dragged on for decades and a liquefied natural gas terminal. All these industrial development proposals failed, largely due to insufficient support and bona fide, measurable concerns about the impacts to the bay. During this long history, we learned a great deal about Sears Island and Penobscot Bay.
To claim that the argument over where to locate the offshore wind facility in Penobscot Bay stacks up as coastal preservation versus climate change mitigation fails to pay attention to the real, ongoing Sears Island versus Mack Point argument.
Environmentalists on both sides of this and related Sears Island offshore wind discussions appreciate the need for urgent climate change response. The central controversy revolves around making the best climate change-informed offshore wind facility siting decision.
According to information presented to the Offshore Wind Port Advisory Group by Maine Department of Transportation, where to locate the needed offshore wind facility boils down to a choice – a choice – between Mack Point or Sears Island. Of course, there are numerous factors at play in that decision, but all available information and data – check the record, a plethora of information exists – points to Mack Point as the best climate change-conscious decision. Environmental voices favor building at Mack Point because of its climate change implications.
Those who advocate for preserving Sears Island and developing the offshore wind facility at Mack Point make that argument for Mack Point precisely because of “the big picture” that is climate change. We concur with those who understand that the climate crisis requires an “all-hands-on-deck” response, but please do not limit that to offshore wind.
The economic impacts of offshore wind jobs in Maine appear to be the same regardless of whether the proposed facility is located on Mack Point or Sears Island. The same number of offshore wind jobs and movement toward climate goals are available by developing Mack Point as would be available at Sears Island. Furthermore, a Sprague Energy report dated October 2023 and provided to participants in the Offshore Wind Port Advisory Group noted that the concept for offshore wind development at Mack Point “preserves all current terminal handling capability” while allowing for potential expansion of and more economical uses of the current so-called bulk dock.
Meanwhile, the negative economic impacts from developing Sears Island have not yet been quantified.
Although research and reliable studies pointed to rising earth resource and climate change issues years ago (think “Tragedy of the Commons,” “The Closing Circle,” “The Limits to Growth,” “Beyond Growth” and other seminal works), it was in 1988 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced a new era of climate research. That same year, James Hansen of NASA and George Woodwell of the Woods Hole Research Center reported to the U.S. Senate that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were rising and responsible for increases in global average temperature.
What do we have to show for this more than 40 years warning? Not much.
I agree with the editorial board that it is past time to stop the “zig-zagging” and “scuffle” that continue to delay a meaningful climate change response. It is also past time for us to come together and acknowledge the “hard reality” that Mack Point is not only a viable option for the proposed offshore wind facility but, from all available indications, a better choice, and get on with making thoughtful climate-change-informed choices.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.