Franklin Countys First News

Letter to the Editor: Regarding the Chesterville special town meeting

Thank you for the thorough and accurate report on the Chesterville special town meeting to oppose the NECEC project.

As the article noted, there was much information of a substantive nature demonstrating that CMP has successfully answered and addressed the concerns raised through the regulatory process and negotiated remarkable environmental, social, and economic concessions, to result in the verdict that the power corridor is a good deal for the state of Maine and a wise energy step for the New England region.

It seems that in Chesterville there are still many who do not see global warming as an issue. However, it is clear to anyone who has paid attention to the increasing alarm of world scientists over the trajectory of warming rates and the associated effects on weather, oceans, extinctions, new diseases, etc., that the highest priority we must have as a civilization right now is to slow emissions from burning fossil fuels.

The proposed power corridor directly addresses global warming by providing for transmission of renewable non-carbon-based energy for our energy future, projected to displace between 3 and 3.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually. This is one small but valuable step away from the cliff.

I seriously pray that honest environmentalists will wake up to this situation. Every species and pastime people are defending will be destroyed in a few decades unless big changes to our energy system happen exactly now.

Cynthia Stancioff

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

28 Responses »

  1. I truly wonder if those in support of CMP listen to their own stances. I am sure it’s confusing to attempt and follow all the latest lies of the left.

  2. Hydro Quebec can sell their ‘clean’ energy to Canadian customers, instead of their own use of fossil fuels. But they don’t want to invest in their own infrastructure to get this ‘clean’ power to the people in Canada who could use it. In addition, Hydro Quebec can not say for certain if they will be using new hydro power or displacing some of what some Canadians are currently using. In other words, there’s no evidence that this transmission of hydro power will actually reduce greenhouse gasses overall, it will most likely just make Massachusetts feel better about the energy they are using, at the cost of Maine forests, streams, views, etc. In addition, there’s the methyl mercury issue with hydro power. Maybe we should all just reduce our power usage instead of buying in to the propaganda of what’s ‘clean’ these days. Remember when nuclear was the new clean energy?

  3. Cynthia,

    Before you speak condescendingly of the residents of Chesterville, you might want to do a little research. NECEC would do nothing to combat global warming for 2 reasons. First, HydroQuebec is a business enterprise, and does not build multibillion dollar dams with mere hopes of selling the electricity. All power generated from HQ dams serve existing markets. Funneling that power into the New England grid doesn't help save the world in any way, it just shifts power to more lucrative markets.

    Second, Hydro Quebec has a total of over 60 dams which have flooded an area of wilderness the size of New Hampshire, killing off GHG reducing foliage that is now decaying and releasing massive amounts of methane, a GHG 30 times more potent than CO2. Hydro power is far from clean and green.

    What NECEC in fact WILL do is open the natural heritage and working forests of western Maine to permanent development and in so doing make CMP and a few foreign shareholders more rich than they are now. Our friends in Chesterville saw this for the scam that it is, and said "No."

  4. Yup, CMP is going to mow down 53 more miles of “working forest” to save the planet. More like they’re going to save a rare orchid and make a tremendous profit.

    Anyone who thinks this Corridor is going to make a global difference has not traveled the globe, nor have most of you set foot in the area that will be heavily impacted by this, for profit, high powered transmission line.

    As CMP officials have said themselves. The benefits of this line is basically non-tangible. While the negative impacts of this line are tangible, so tangible they’re forking out mitigation monies.

    I know which side I’m on....

    Thanks for your overwhelming vote to rescind and oppose the NECEC Chesterville.


  5. Cynthia, please try and get off the KOOL-AID. Not quite sure of the total effects but from what I hear they are not good. NO CORRIDOR and thank you again Chesterville residents for your time and voting.

  6. If your concern is the environment should you be fighting for Vermont? They are shovel ready and have all permits. Along with the fact it is along corridors that already Are established. That should be your point. Not the destruction of our ability to capture carbon and provide clean air for your grandchildren and millions of people that live here and visit Maine. NECEC NOT FOR M. E.
    Thank you

  7. Cynthia..
    After reading this I still am against the corridor.
    Ruining beautiful lands and environments and lovely views that our state has is not worth filling their pockets .. Cant believe anyone would believe the lies.
    Thank you to all Chestervillians who voted against this.

  8. I am so proud of our little town. Please people let this be a lesson before you sign or again to anything, . ask questions, get all the facts, no question is stupid! I love my town of Chesterville.

  9. when are they going to start addressing the real issue with so called global warming?how about putting the pressure on countrys like china ,the Koreas and the other countries in the world that are causing most of the worlds pollution ?no they just want to take land away fro maoners and ruin it for the all mighty dollar and hide that behind saying its better for the environment if so them why did maine pull out most of its hydro electric dams or why are we not building new ones so that we the people of maine can get the money from selling so-called clean energy to mass ?

  10. Cynthia, hallelujah your prayers have been answered..

    The "HONEST" Environmentalist are awake.
    They just disagree with you.

    This project is a scam.
    Shame on our Governor!

  11. Whether or not this is a 'green' project is highly controversial among environmentalists which is why an independent study to check the CMP's CO2 emission savings claim (that convinced Janet Mills) was so important. Since that bill never made it through the legislature....we will never know. At this point in time with climate change accelerating, we should be absolutely sure that we are not doing more harm than good (for the next 40 years) before we proceed with such a project.
    To those who continue to echo Trump pointing the finger at other countries, compare populations to CO2 emissions for the top 3 emitters in the world. With regards to CO2 emissions per capita, we are way ahead of everyone else.
    Country % of Total Global CO2 Emissions Annual CO2 Emissions Population
    China 28% 9.5 Billion tons 1.5 Billion
    USA 15% 5.0 Billion tons 330 million
    India 6% 2.0 Billion tons 1.4 Billion

    Consider the transportation sector which accounts for 29% of CO2 emissions in the US.
    1 gallon of gasoline (vehicle combustion) emits 19.6 pounds of CO2 into the air. (Yes, this is true! Gas with ethanol emits around 17 pounds.) Think about all the gas guzzling vehicles in this country compared to other countries. How many pounds of CO2 will your vehicle emit into the air today?

  12. Thank you Chesterville for some good
    'Common Sense'...The way the voters in Maine
    used to be before our Politicians sold their souls
    for money and pumped their egos for headlines.

  13. Every species will be destroyed in a few decades...really??

  14. Lindy,

    Where did you find that data about the weights of CO2 emissions??? I find it hard to believe since a gallon
    Of gas weighs about 6 pounds. With combustion in an engine it is mixed with air which has virtually no
    weight. If 100% of the burnt gas becomes CO2, how is it possible to gain an additional 13 pounds to 19.6
    Pounds? Seems like there is alot of false data floating around the internet and people take it as fact. I am
    Still waiting for allllllll the flooding and catastrophic events predicted by Al Gore in his famous movie. There
    Is no doubt that the earth is slowly warming over time and it has been happening since the last ice age. But
    The Dems are using scare tactics to advance their super green agenda. This is dangerous to our economic

  15. I don't know exactly why I'm going to get into this - again - but I guess if I can just help one person see the light. This whole thing with "manmade" climate change is a farce. It started in the 70's as a theory (actually cooling was thought to be coming), then it appeared that warming was happening. But before any real proof came along it was hijacked for political ($$) reasons. How many hundreds or even thousands of predictions of coming events and catastrophes that don't come true have to happen before people start to see this for what it is. Many of these predictions were for 2000, then 2010, then 2020 and now they're moving them further out. The UN's IPCC is actually using a formula from the 70s - 80s and a whole lot more science has come to light since then. Even crazy me had an open mind up until the Paris Climate Accords. Interested in some real science? Did you know the sun has a huge effect on our earthquakes? Volcanoes? Weather? Oh well of course the sun has an effect on our weather! But not our climate?? Go to - Videos for non members, also a daily news update on the sun, earth, weather, new science. More available for members. Plenty of scientists know the insanity of this alarmism going on. I feel worse for the young people now thinking we have 12 years left. Enough for now.

  16. Cynthia, did you rally listen at the forum? CMP did not answer a question. Like one of the against the corridor panel members said Green House emissions will be result with or with out the line going through Maine.

  17. The Lion roars, You mean like $3 billion in debt under King, or the $44 million Mainecare debt under Baldacci? Or the almost billion dollar surplus under LePage? You need to be more specific about which past governor you are referring to.

  18. To Mike D......The data on the high amount of CO2 from gasoline (One gallon of gasoline gives off 19.6 pounds of CO2 (from combustion) even though a gallon of gasoline weighs only about 6 pounds) is on many reputable scientific as well as US government websites. Here's one:

    But, if you think about makes sense. Gasoline is made up of several different organic molecules that consist of long strings of mainly of carbon and hydrogen atoms with only a few other different atoms thrown in. During combustion, these molecules break up (which is where the energy to run the car comes from) and CO2 and water are formed. The oxygen atoms needed to create the CO2 and water comes from the surrounding air. In a CO2 molecule, one carbon atom is joined to 2 oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms are heavy compared to the weights of carbon and hydrogen atoms. (See periodic table). Considering the high number of carbon atoms in a gallon of gasoline, a lot of CO2 is created and when each is joined to 2 oxygen atoms it ends up being a lot heavier than the gallon of gasoline.


    The chart in my other comment got scrunched when it updated. Here it is again. The comparison of CO2 emissions based on populations for the top 3 emitters in the world is significant in that it shows how much more CO2 the US puts out per capita. The US has no grounds to accuse other countries as being worse than us. On another note....considering the amount of manmade CO2 each country emits into the air each can anyone not see how human activity is responsible for the climbing atmospheric CO2 levels. Per NOAA, the monthly CO2 average for June 2019 was 414 ppm!!! Back in the mid 1800s before the industrial revolution and all the cars we have today...the atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm. That is an incredible increase over a short span of time. We have created a big and very serious problem.

    Country...….. % of Total Global CO2 Emissions ...…....Annual CO2 Emissions...……... Population
    China .....................…….28%...………………………………. 9.5 Billion tons...…………. 1.5 Billion
    USA .....................……...15%...………………………………. 5.0 Billion tons...……………. 330 million
    India ........................….....6%...………………………………. 2.0 Billion tons...…………. 1.4 Billion

  19. Ref: Hrtlss Bstrd....Did I mention a Governor ? You are reading things that were never printed in my statement.
    A little touchy are you not ? I will vote for LePage should he run again....Now do you feel better ?

  20. Follow up to Lindy.

    This is off topic, but i did a bit of research and learned a few things about gasoline engines and emissions.
    There are lots of articles online that state what Lindy wrote, ie:burning 1 gallon of gas gives 19.6lbs of CO2.
    I didn't realize that so much air is combusted with a single gallon of gas. There is a formula called the
    Stoichiometric Ratio that reads: for every 1 pound of gas you must have 14.7 pounds of air for combustion.
    Gas weighs 6.3 pounds per gallon so that means you need 92.6 pounds of air. Wow!!! However, air is 78%
    Nitrogen, and that passed thru the engine, there goes 72.2 pounds of weight. Leaving 20.4 pounds of CO2
    And H20 (water). So, there you have that 20 pounds that Lindy mentioned and is written in many articles
    On the internet. But, these acticles leave out some important information. That 20 pounds is made up of
    water and CO2. The actual chemical formula of that 20 lbs of combustion gases is 8CO2 + 9H2O. I have
    No idea what the corresponding weights are for the water and CO2, but it appears to be about equal maybe?
    Also important to note. All modern cars have Catalitic converters which reduce the harmful emissions by
    About 40%. Given this additional information, i suggest people be a bit skeptical when they read or repeat
    These facts and figures from the internet.

  21. Mike D.....My explanation about the gasoline and CO2 output was a simplified version. Your explanation is interesting regarding the amount of air needed to burn a gallon of gas....but needs some clarification. First, air before combustion with the gasoline is: 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, 1% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and the rest miscellaneous gases and varying amounts of water. The oxygen in the air is necessary for any combustion to occur. During combustion of gasoline, with all the nitrogen present in the surrounding air, a lot of it combines with oxygen to form high amounts of different nitrogen oxides (NOX). Meanwhile combustion is causing the carbon atoms in the gasoline to form CO2. ( Water and a few other gases also form.) Another explanation for the amount of CO2 being formed …..the carbon content of a gallon of gasoline is 5.3 pounds (this is per NASA). That's a lot of carbon. In fact carbon makes up 87% of gasoline. If each carbon atom becomes 3.6 times heavier when it attaches to 2 oxygen atoms to form CO2 during combustion (consider the atomic weight of carbon which is 12 and for two oxygen atoms about weight of one CO2 molecule is 44), then the 5.3 pounds of carbon in a gallon of gas becomes just over 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. That is pure CO2 without any water.

    Catalytic converters do not reduce the amount of CO2 going into the air and actually end up adding some. From car exhaust, their purpose is to remove NOX and convert carbon monoxide to CO2.

  22. Don't mess around with Lindy, she'll support her statements with research and facts! Annnnndd then comes Mike who also makes the readings here informative and interesting. Between the two we all learn something. Thanks to you both and keep us informed.

  23. Thank you, Bob M., for your kind words.
    Sadly, we all have to be very careful about what we believe on the internet these days with special interests and politicians creating and displaying on fancy websites, their 'alternate facts', in an effort to undermine science that they don't like. Climate change is the poster child for this. Some very powerful people and wealthy corporations will lose fortunes if we switch from fossil fuels to green technology to fight climate change. Do you think these people are just going to sit back and let that happen? Their efforts have already been successful with many Americans denying climate change and believing the statements made by industry-influenced politicians over proven scientific facts. Consequently, instead of working on fixing climate change like we should be doing, this country has been at a standstill. And, what do the thousands of scientists across the world gain from making claims about human induced climate change? Certainly very little compared to what the fossil fuel industry will lose if we cut back on emissions. Like they say.....if you want the truth, follow the money.

  24. Lindy, I absolutely applaud you in your determination to research answers and come up with the very best you can. (and that's no slight in any way) I would ask you if you have the time to investigate There's a lot on their site and more each day and there's certainly a learning curve to it. Much of the cosmology science is over my head but the sun to earth interactions are reasonable. It IS cutting edge science. I make the invitation.

  25. To Pine Tree…..Thanks for the info on the website. I watched a couple of their videos and it appears that they cherry pick info and take fancy complicated graphs from reputable science websites (like NASA) to overwhelm and impress people and then insert their own interpretations of that info. But, who are these people? What are their qualifications? The main guy is an attorney! I think it is better for regular folks like you and me to just go to the science sites directly which often provide explanations that we can understand. In addition, read science books written by people who are actually in that field of study. There are some good magazines like Science News, Scientific American, Nature, etc. Also, many research organizations and universities have websites that discuss their studies.

  26. Lindy, I thank-you for taking the time. Yes, Ben was trained as a lawyer and left that field for something he was far more interested in. I won't go further now in trying to defend the site but I do enjoy it and feel I learn a lot from it. I guess I could only encourage you to either look more into it occasionally or watch their daily news video (only about 4-5 minutes). I do feel (or have heard from more than one source) that some of the magazines you mention are (corrupted?) in the pro-manmade climate change arena, where peer-reviewed papers are essentially a circular thing where if you don't sign off for others, others won't sign off for you. We could probably at least agree that it's not easy to find the truth. I do take from you that I could still broaden my sources. Thanks again.

  27. The people who are for the CMP corridor should really do some research. Hydro Quebec ALREADY has a DC current power line to Massachusetts. If you don’t believe me, just read their website:

    They do not need a new corridor, this is just a way for CMP to make more money and for Hydro Quebec to avoid the legislation and permits needed to beef up their existing lines. Not to mention that it is cheaper to bribe Maine politicians...

  28. Cynthia, I would venture to guess that almost everyone in the room in Chesterville is concerned about the environment and global warming. The fact is the NECEC does nothing to address that. Even if you believe that Hydro Quebec mega dams are green, which they are not, consider that GHG emissions will only be reduced if they need to add new capacity for the project, which they don't. And if they did, its not green either (methane, methly mercury and carbon sequestration from trees). Also consider that the project is permitted and ready to go in Vermont, so it will happen anyway. (They just want Maine, the cheap date) This project is not and has never been about the environment. It is an elective for profit merchant line designed to make 2 huge foreign corporations (and a few select Mainers) mega profits at the expense of the Maine woods and the Maine people. I almost fell out of my seat the other night in Chesterville when Thorn Dickenson said the line would reduce electric rates in the future. I think he meant to say "suppress" but even if you believe that i have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. #nocorridor