Serge Abergel wrote a response to my letter in the Islander (Islander, Aug. 12) and his comments do not even address what I wrote. Let’s clarify. I said nothing about backfilling. I explained that HQ already has routes for providing power to the New England grid. Why do we need another?
As for Maine regulatory agencies – the point that Mr. Abergel so conveniently missed was that without completing an Environmental Impact Statement to provide scientific data, no agency could accurately make an informed assessment and their decision then becomes more political than science based.
Abergel’s reference to the huge impoundments…perhaps he needs to read “Blue Deserts” and “Arctic Blue Deserts” to update his information. The discharges from the large impoundments are not natural and can disrupt the silica content provided to the organisms that are basic to the marine ecosystem in the Bay of Fundy and beyond.
And also, perhaps Mr. Abergel should acknowledge publicly that HQ has never testified, under oath, in any hearing for any agency mentioned in his letter. Is HQ afraid that they might be held accountable or asked an uncomfortable question? Conflating my comment about methane production and fluctuating water levels with his dams in the tropics tirade brings to mind “me thinks he doth protest too much.”
To be clear, I am not part of Big Gas and Oil. I hold a Ph.D. in the field of environmental dynamics and have worked for USAID, Ford Foundation and IUCN in every country where boreal and northern temperate forests exist, including Canada.
The NECEC will fragment the largest contiguous forest east of the Mississippi. Yes, it is a working forest, but it’s not clear cut in perpetuity. There has been no intensive study done to estimate the actual environmental damage and cost.
Anyone who presents the arguments proffered by Mr. Abergel is blowing smoke and avoiding the real argument. But of course, the proponents of the NECEC have done this all along.
I urge everyone to vote Yes and reject this horrible project.