Aishton LTE: Response to NECEC column

Bangor Daily News

I am responding to Richard Anderson and Richard Barringer’s Aug. 11 column regarding the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) corridor. They are correct about climate change. Then their column slips into the “it’s not what you say that counts, it’s what you don’t say” mode.

“This project was carefully reviewed’? An Environmental Impact Statement was not implemented (New Hampshire and Vermont did one for this project).

How could anyone meticulously assess information if there was none? Many hours of testimony were reviewed, but without an EIS there is not enough concrete data upon which to base a decision. The process Anderson and Barringer describe is political, not scientific.

I believe the energy from Hydro-Quebec is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. I think that scientific research illuminated in the publications “Blue Deserts” and “Arctic Blue Deserts” describes the true, negative impact large dam complexes have on ecosystems and people.

There is no attempt to write new laws, the attempt is to enforce existing laws and Anderson and Barringer ought to understand that difference. A recent court ruling by Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy seems to confirm that backroom deals, rather than constitutional processes, were used so that CMP could cross public lands.

Anderson and Barringer write about recklessly dismantling the process to learn the truth. In my opinion, we have not seen the truth nor have we had a scientific process to determine what the truth is. Until we reach that point, all we have is corporate and political influence and that is not law.

Richard Aishton


Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Sandra Howard
    published this page in News 2021-08-30 19:23:57 -0400