NRCM isn't working in Maine's best interest
The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) has earned a reputation for protecting the environment and the people of Maine.
It has championed wind power development, delayed Plum Creek's plan in Greenville and removed dams from Maine's rivers in recent years. These actions have had an impact Maine's economy.
To this columnist, the staff and board members of the NRCM seem to have lost their way. It appears they have gone from protecting Maine's environment and people to harming them.
This can't be good.
Leader in Wind Power Development
The NRCM's 2008 annual report boasts that the organization helped produce a plan "to make Maine a leader in wind power development, ensure Maine people receive tangible benefits, and protect Maine's quality of place."
Because of this plan, an estimated 15,000 to 40,000 acres of Maine's most beautiful and essential mountain top wildlife habitat will be destroyed by industrial wind developers.
Is a plan that causes permanent destruction of fragile mountain-top habitat protecting Maine's "quality of place"?
Full implementation of wind power, it is estimated, will double electricity rates.
Is a plan that threatens high-paying, high-tech jobs at world-class semiconductor manufacturers by driving up utility rates leadership?
Few jobs are being created, and according to the Maine Revenue Service, few tax revenues will be forthcoming from wind development.
Is a plan that will bring few permanent jobs to Maine, and provide little or no tax revenue, while adding billions to the Federal deficit and debt, "ensuring tangible benefits"?
In Vinalhaven and Mars Hill, harmful mental and physical effects are troubling some citizens.
Is this a plan for protecting the people of Maine?
Delaying Plum Creek's Development Plan
According to the NRCM, Plum Creek's plan "will forever damage one of Maine's most remarkable areas." The NRCM is proud to have delayed Plum Creek's development plan, on procedural grounds, not the validity of the plan.
Plum Creek's plan will disturb only 1,500 acres for homes, buildings and roads, when allowed to move forward.
Compare that to a minimum of 15,000 acres permanently destroyed, and holes literally blasted out of mountainsides to make foundation sites for 25-story industrial wind turbines.
Don't they see contradiction in this?
The Greenville area will gain 975 new homes, 100 rental cabins, two new hotels, a golf course, a new marina, new convenience stores, barber and beauty shops, and gas stations. New sources of tax revenue to the localities and the state are estimated between $25 million and $75 million.
Sounds like good community development to me.
Plum Creek's plan could bring some 500 new permanent jobs, and perhaps over 1,000 temporary jobs, to the Moosehead region, five times what wind power development can claim.
How can they justify delaying jobs for working people in rural Maine?
A long-term conservation easement will be placed on 430,000 acres of forest by Plum Creek's plan as well.
Does NRCM think that stopping the protection of these forests is wrong?
Hydro Electric Compared to Wind Turbines
NRCM pushed for the removal of three hydroelectric dams on the Penobscot River, the removal of the Edward's hydroelectric dam on the Kennebec River, and prevented the building of the Big-A dam on the West Branch of the Penobscot.
Ironically, their work wipes out 200 megawatts of clean renewable energy, and kills some 50 sustainable jobs in Maine.
Comparing the Big-A hydroelectric dam to the similar amount of erratic wind power output is not equal, but I'll do it anyway.
Side-by-side comparison for 40 megawatts: Big-A Hydro, cost $100 million, 20 acres disturbed; Wind power, cost $825 million, 2,500 acres destroyed.
Clearly, putting in the Big-A project would have been much better economically and environmentally for Maine. Ripping out more dams should be reconsidered. Investing the same $825 million in modern fish ladders and modern hydro-turbines is a better idea.
So, the questions begin to mount up.
Why is the NRCM for policies that destroy essential fragile habitat?
Why is the NRCM for industrial policies that hurt Maine economically?
Why is the NRCM for policies that are physically harmful to people and animals?
Why is the NRCM for policies that threaten high-paying high tech jobs at world-class semiconductor manufacturers?
Basing economic and environmental policies on the questionable theory of anthropogenic global warming seems very thin.
These are just a few of the questions the people of Maine need to ask the staff, and the board members of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and their supporters.
J Dwight is President & Chief Investment Officer of Dwight Investment Counsel, 120 Orchard Dr., Wilton, ME 04294. 207-645-9415. www.buffettstyle.net
Report a correction
NRCM sends that dreadful
NRCM sends that dreadful little eltisit out of state snot Dylan Voorhees around preaching the gospel of this economic and environmental folly. While promoting industrial wind, he always will say NRCM hasn't taken a position on a certain project then they later endorse every project. When Voorhees brought his promotion to Lincoln, he was met by a hostile crowd and told them NRCM hadn't decided on the Rollins project of First Wind. Then one week later, he testified to the DEP in glowing support of the project. Dylan Voorhees admitted that the only time he had ever been north of Bangor was to go to Baxter Park. He had never been to the Lincoln Lakes region before he came to town to condemn the 15 beautiful lakes and the rolling ridges to destruction by First Wind.
NRCM, don't lie to us and have some full disclosure. Maybe even have your Board of Directors sit through a balanced debate on this topic. Answer one question, NRCM: How is advocating the blasting away of 350 miles of ridgelines, permanently clearcutting 50,000 or more acres of carbon sequestering forest, and strangling the state in a spiderweb of new transmission lines considered protecting the natural resources of the state?
Bless J. Dwight for his insightful column!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Maybe the National Resources
Maybe the National Resources Council of Maine is the new industrial wind lobby. My guess is that the wind companies have contributed LARGE sums of hush money and NRCM is now beholden to them. Maybe the governor has pressured NRCM to align with him. It makes no sense at all that NRCM would fight Plum Creek and hydropower, yet have worked so hard to protect an industry that is bent on destroying so many acres of Maine wildlands. It is confusing to me that this company has been built on the protection of Maine resources and are turning a blind eye to this historic destruction of some of the most beautiful areas in the state. Their mission statement in its first paragraph includes that they are "protecting, restoring, and conserving Maine's environment, now and for future generations. We work to improve the quality of Maine's rivers; ... and to conserve Maine lands."
Please, NRCM explain to me how you can support industrial wind and keep these words in your mission statement. From where I stand, you look like a bunch of hypocrites.
Why aren't you out there pushing weatherization?
Why aren't you considering these industrial mountain top sites vital in "Maine's quality of place"?
Why do you support an industry that will double Maine's electricity rates and place this burden on our already burdened population? Industrial wind is not good for our economy.
Get your priorities straight. I once supported you. I will never again.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Has someone at NRCM cooked
Has someone at NRCM cooked the carbon #'s?
Right or wrong, let's for the purpose here assume that manmade global warming is real and that NRCM's carbon numbers are correct.
You can then do some simple math to put things in perspective. Because they supply the CO2 emissions avoided by several wind farms, you can project total emissions avoided based on the governor's ultimate goal.
They also supply CO2 sequestered by "X" number of acres of pine-fir forest. Using Maine's total acreage and multiplying by its nation-leading 89% forest cover, you can then project how much CO2 is sequestered by all of Maine's forests.
At this point you will see that the MASSIVE change to Maine's ridgelines effected by installing thousand of turbines and their requisite transmission structures equals about 4% of what the forest does naturally.
Now, factor out spinning reserve, outside grid electricity used by wind farms and transmission loss due to the fact that turbines are not proximate to where the electricity is consumed, such as in Connecticut. Also factor in that Maine has many hardwoods which sequester CO2 better than pine-fir. (BTW, they use Douglas fir!).
Now factor in that CO2 capture is only half of the cooling caused by forests. The other half is from evapotransport. (Touch that cool shady tree in the middle of the hot sunny field - you don't burn your hand!).
Now, factor in that NRCM's emissions avoided numbers may be overstated as is often seen in the world of the carbon industry. For example, are they based on Maine's electrical generating mix or do they include lots of coal?
Maine has low population, a huge CO2 sequestration rate and lots of hydro generation. We are an exemplary CO2 citizen. Why would a national 20% cookie cutter renewables goal be accepted by our governor? It does not compute.
If there's one thing we could do it's weatherize our old housing stock.
A MAJOR environmental onslaught of thousands of turbines does not justify a likely 1% reduction to any warming we cause.
The math is simple and compelling and heads should be rolling at NRCM once they do the math themselves.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Tourism is Maine's largest
Tourism is Maine's largest industry. I wonder how many jobs and how much tax revenue we will be losing because of these horendous wind turbines.
Hunting and fishing also add jobs and tax dollars to our economy. The building of these turbines and the access roads and the high voltage transmission lines will fragment and destroy the habitat needed for deer and other wildlife and the herbicides and silt will polute our waterways, rivers streams and lakes.
Dylan Voorhees and members of the NRCM must be forced to address these issues.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Industrial wind is a terrible
Industrial wind is a terrible idea for Maine.
Read more at:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is my opinion that NRCM
It is my opinion that NRCM has evolved over the years from a caring environmental organization to a gang of snobbish elitists who may be greenwashing the misdeeds of corporations. Greenwashing is like the Mafia charging protection money if you want to do business in their area of control. Work with us and we will say that you are good. Don't support us and we will tie you up in court.
I am glad I let my membership expire years ago.
Their leader is from Virginia and the top people pushing wind are SURPRISE from the Ivy League schools that have spawned the biggest coterie of subsidy-milking phony environmentalists we have ever seen. They are the same types who are pushing this subsidy sucking scam in Vinalhaven and all over the U.S.
Why will they not publish an itemized list of corporate "donations"?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Certainly, when Dylan
Certainly, when Dylan Voorhess addressed the people attending the wind debate in Dixfield, He didn't intentionly focus his arguement for wind power almost entirely on increased tax revenue for our small towns, or is this his new approach ? How shameful of you, Dylan. Perhaps for a few bucks, we can slaughter some more of Maine's unique resources. I am at this time denouncing my membership to this organization.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.