3 ms·

ISO-NE is heavily dependent upon natural gas and to a lesser extent, coal. The new transmission line has a capacity of over a gigawatt, and that energy is going

ISO-NE is heavily dependent upon natural gas and to a lesser extent, coal. The new transmission line has a capacity of over a gigawatt, and that energy is going to be entirely hydroelectric which means it will shift power generation off of 3-4 coal/oil plants as well as help with the region's severely constrained natural gas supply; during the winter, there isn't enough natural gas for heating, industry, and electricity generation. The line is estimated to bring a reduction of about 3 million tons of carbon a year. So yes, cutting down some trees for 50 miles is a fair tradeoff to decades of pollution reduction. > offering very little to Maine people and businesses Reducing oil/coal pollution in the region is a pretty big benefit. Slowing global warming is a pretty big benefit. Everyone (claims) to be for doing something about global warming until it means something happening near them. The same BS is happening with the Cape Cod wind farms. The locals are screaming about how the power being generated is going to be "sold" to Connecticut and trotting out unfounded claims about environmental and species impact.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
>Everyone (claims) to be for doing something about global warming until it means something happening near them. Something happening near you isn't any indication of its benefit to the environment. The commenter seems to be more concerned that it might not be beneficial.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  The specific comment aside: I would judge your characterization as categorically overly generous, and that such benefit of the doubt is problematic from a policy perspective. "Think of the environment" is a convinent argument that can align with whatever aims you'd like and casual acceptance of these arguments gives them undeserved weight. Anything[0] can be construed as environmentally damaging or worthy of study (read: delay). [0] Hydropower, solar power, and building housing for instance.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    I'm not sure you responded to the right comment, as mine was just clarifying that the previous comment didn't make any of the points that the next comment rebutted. Similar to this one. But I'll agree that anything can be considered damaging. Only in so much as it can also be considered environmentally friendly even when it's actually damaging. Cigarettes used to be good for you. The marketing arms of large corporations funded much research that supported that claim. What warrants delay is situationally dependent. We shouldn't make blanket statements about delays. Especially as pertains to policy.
robocat 3y ago
> that energy is going to be entirely hydroelectric I doing know the details, but this style of thinking is usually wrong. Power is a network. Only if there is unused hydroelectric generation is the power green. Otherwise you are just shifting power and tagging it "green", but not making any actual difference. Marginal changes cause marginal increases. It is unintuitive and requires thinking about power in the right way.
- euroderf 3y ago
  > Only if there is unused hydroelectric generation This should not be difficult for a regional newspaper to figure out.

trimethylpurine 3y ago

>Everyone (claims) to be for doing something about global warming until it means something happening near them. Something happening near you isn't any indication of its benefit to the environment. The commenter seems to be more concerned that it might not be beneficial.

thereisnospork 3y ago
The specific comment aside: I would judge your characterization as categorically overly generous, and that such benefit of the doubt is problematic from a policy perspective. "Think of the environment" is a convinent argument that can align with whatever aims you'd like and casual acceptance of these arguments gives them undeserved weight. Anything[0] can be construed as environmentally damaging or worthy of study (read: delay). [0] Hydropower, solar power, and building housing for instance.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  I'm not sure you responded to the right comment, as mine was just clarifying that the previous comment didn't make any of the points that the next comment rebutted. Similar to this one. But I'll agree that anything can be considered damaging. Only in so much as it can also be considered environmentally friendly even when it's actually damaging. Cigarettes used to be good for you. The marketing arms of large corporations funded much research that supported that claim. What warrants delay is situationally dependent. We shouldn't make blanket statements about delays. Especially as pertains to policy.

robocat 3y ago

> that energy is going to be entirely hydroelectric I doing know the details, but this style of thinking is usually wrong. Power is a network. Only if there is unused hydroelectric generation is the power green. Otherwise you are just shifting power and tagging it "green", but not making any actual difference. Marginal changes cause marginal increases. It is unintuitive and requires thinking about power in the right way.

euroderf 3y ago
> Only if there is unused hydroelectric generation This should not be difficult for a regional newspaper to figure out.