My name is Richard Aishton and I am writing this to respond to the [guest column] authored by Mr. Orion Schwab of Spruce Mountain High School. I have been a natural resource practitioner for most of my 69 years and, I, like Orion, believe that drastic action must be taken to help mitigate the consequences of climate change.

I believe that the program Orion describes is a valuable and necessary opportunity to help students interact, learn from each other, and engage in debates about important subjects such as the NECEC. It is puzzling to me that Orion chose to air a concern about a “recent chorus of uniformed slogans and misleading information” disseminated by an “out-of-state fuel lobby”. I am part of a grass roots group named “Say No to NECEC” that has more than 7000 members. The information that we highlight is fact-based information that does refute much of what Orion discusses. There could NOT be a more destructive project to implement than the NECEC in terms of the environmental costs compared to the benefits that Mainers would receive. There has been no  environmental Impact Statement for a project that will clear cut 3500 acres of woodland and fragment the largest unfragmented tract of woodland east of the Mississippi river. Moreover, this is an elective, FOR-PROFIT project and not something that Mainers have voted to support or not. (but they should).

Orion is correct when he states that climate change is real and will have an impact on he and generations to come. However, it should be understood that the NECEC does NOT draw on a source of power that is ‘clean’. This argument that has been stated many times is actually false. Here is an example: : ‘When you add the emissions from building and producing materials for a dam, as well as the emissions from clearing forests and moving earth, the greenhouse gas production from hydro is expected to be about the same as from burning natural gas,’ says professor David Schindler.Politicians who describe dams as “clean energy projects” are talking “nonsense” and rejecting decades of science, says David Schindler, a leading water ecologist.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schindler) . And this doesn’t even mention the volumes of methane gas and methyl mercury that are bi-products of HQ’s practice of flooding vast acreages of woodlands. Further, Orion states that ‘losing a narrow strip of land alongside an existing power corridor seems like a small price to pay for a contribution to the fight against global warming. (Indeed, the corridor passes within a mile of where I live in East Livermore).” Be reminded again that this ‘narrow strip’ represents 3500 acres of land that will be clear cut and treated with herbicides. A credible response to climate change is NOT to clear 3500 acres of woodland.

I can wholeheartedly agree with Orion that Canada is more fundamentally committed to climate change than the US. However, HQ is NOT a clean energy supply. Actually, Maine does not really have to depend on Canada for clean energy. Maine has the capacity and potential to do the same without relying on Canada. As for net carbon emissions – no study has been done nor has an EIS and a project of this magnitude needs both. But, recall: this is an elective, for-profit project that will net CMP and its Spanish parent company, Iberdrola, huge profits.

The exporting of 36.1 terawatt hours of hydro electric power is really not the issue in dealing with the NECEC. The issue is twofold: (1) does this benefit Maine? The answer is no because the environmental costs are likely overbalance the benefits and actually have not even been considered yet. Then the fact that the proposed ‘windfall’ offered by CMP amounts to approximately 35 CENTS a month in benefit is insulting; and (2) the Massachusetts Attorney General has flagged the fact that HQ is not likely to be selling new power, it will simply be re-routing power through existing networks in order to maximize profits and the NECEC would just be another option for maximizing profit.

As far as Orion’s claim about the MA Clean Energy Portfolio – many Massachusetts-based environmental organizations are against the NECEC because it will actually stall real action to meet the renewable targets in MA.

The frustrating aspect to which Orion refers is the lack of reliable information. I would contribute that there is a rather large amount of reliable information, but this information is constantly being compromised and twisted by CMP. Any grassroots movement or environmental group cannot afford to state anything but factual information that is a result of diligent research. One misstatement and most, if not all credibility is lost. But for CMP – even one simple example illustrates the difference. CMP has stated on more than one occasion that the corridor Right of Way is ‘mostly completed’. However, (1) the ROW is 56% completed IF one does not include the widening of the corridor for many parts of the lower 92 mile stretch. And in my work 56% is NOT ‘mostly completed’. (2) if one calculated the entire ROW using CMP drawings only 36% is actually done. And why will CMP never answer questions about what will be done with the additional 150 feet of the 300 foot wide corridor?

I am very pleased with the attitude Orion and his colleagues show with their work on the Envirothon team. Yes, they and others will bear the consequences of a changing climate and I am saddened by that reality. It is heartening that people like Orion and his team will take on this fight. I hope that others like them follow. I would state that right now Orion and his team have 7000 allies in the form of “Say No to NECEC” because we are also committed to making sure that his generation (we all have children and grandchildren who will be affected) is not alone in this fight. I would also like to pose a challenge to Orion and his team about organizing a debate and Q&A session with CMP, selected representatives from “Say No to NECEC” and others who may want to participate as well. This could even be a televised event!

Richard Aishton is a Farmington resident. He holds a Ph.D. in the field of natural resource dynamics and policy analysis and has most recently completed a 7-year project for IUCN (IUCN.org) entitled the Forest Law Enforcement & Governance Program that was implemented in all of Eastern Europe and Russia.

Copy the Story Link