I read with great interest your May 5 story about the Central Maine Power/Hydro-Quebec project and its impact on the North Woods.

I am not an advocate for CMP; I am an advocate for my daughters, for their children and for their children’s children. We are at a critical point where climatically we need to make a change. Doing the same old same old is not acceptable.

The conundrum, for me, is: Do we address climate change or not?

With Hydro-Quebec and the No Corridors opponents, the debate seems to be: Do we support addressing climate change impacts with our energy generation, or do we protect the North Woods and maintain the same energy generation models – nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas – that impact the forest health?

My spiritual place is the woods of Maine. For years, I led trips for cancer patients to places that would offer the beauty, serenity and community that can happen in those less traveled places.

My love for those places, by itself, is not doing anything to address the forces of climate change, which, long term, is a much more pressing concern. The No Corridor opponents are not providing an answer for what alternative sources of energy generation that they will support, that reduce climate change and that are acceptable.

Many of us want safe, renewable energy and to have the “lights on” on demand, but no one wants to have that generation in their backyard. Somewhere else, preferably far away, not contributing to climate change.

We are at a place where we need to make a hard, but very important decision: Work hard to fight the march of climate change or not. This electrical power may be going to Massachusetts, but the reality is that we can have “cleaner” electrical generation that benefits Maine and addresses climate change.

David Hyde

Pownal

« Previous

Letter to the editor: If traffic laws are still on the books, let’s enforce them

Next »

Letter to the editor: Rate reform best way to address problems with Maine utilities