To the Editor:
I have to give Ellen Pope credit for responding to my letter (presumably with a straight face).
The mention of an Environmental Assessment is one key issue. Ms. Pope is correct in stating that an EA is less intensive. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would have provided the quantitative data required to make a fact-based decision. Vermont and New Hampshire did one for their versions of the NECEC, why not Maine?
Ms. Pope listed the amount of time taken for the reviews by the various agencies. My response to this is, “Wow, I didn’t realize how much time it takes to comb through NO scientific data.”
Methane is always produced when organic matter rots under water regardless of what Hydro Quebec’s website states. How about mentioning methyl mercury, that bio-accumulative neurotoxic poison that is another HQ ‘gift’?
The whataboutism Ms. Pope uses for NRCM not giving testimony, under oath, is humorous at best. The fact that HQ has spent millions of dollars on PR to put lipstick on this project and stands to make over $10 billion per year is, in my humble opinion, a tad more problematic than NRCM.
We have a Spanish company whose CEO is under criminal investigation for corporate espionage, their child (CMP) deemed the worst company in the U.S. for customer satisfaction and a Canadian company (aka the Canadian government) spending millions of dollars on PR without citing independent scientific information. Ellen Pope defends the indefensible.