I first heard of this proposal in mid-April and immediately contacted
Cree and non-Cree who live in the aftermath of destruction and
disruption of their traditional lives, that Hydro-Quebec has wrought in
northern Quebec over the years.
Freddy Jolly and Roger Orr, two Cree who are in the way of HQ's path and
plans, sent me testimony that I read to the Senate Natural Resources
and Energy Committee the day after the House passed the bill. Wrote
Jolly: "The devastation to me, my family and the Cree Nation is
substantial. I am a witness and my eyes and heart do not lie." Other
than Sens. McCormack, Campbell and MacDonald (who attempted to remove
this rider), it was obvious that legislators had their minds made up.
Letters and testimony of opposition were given cursory attention.
CONNECT THE DOTS
I began to connect the dots. Hydro-Quebec is a provincial corporation on
a scale that is almost unimaginable (Avatar in real life and time!).
Many in Quebec want to see the province more financially independent
(secession from Canada has been their political agenda). What do they
have to exploit and export? A vast system of wild free-flowing rivers
that flow into James Bay.
The Cree who lived on those lands were deceived and sold out by their
leaders. They signed agreements for compensation, knowing that HQ would
take the land regardless. Then they were slapped with a gag order not to
protest.
Gov. Douglas, who this spring was awarded a prestigious title of Officer
of the Ordre national du Quebec from Quebec's Premier Charest - in
recognition for his tireless efforts in developing economic ties and
opportunities for Quebec - and our two largest utilities have been
regurgitating HQ's propaganda in justifying this renewable status.
During the legislative session I asked key supporters of this change
whether they had ever seen firsthand the devastation or talked to the
Cree. They were tongue-tied. What they do say is that HQ will give us a
better deal in a new contract if Vermont gifts them this status. The
utilities' lobbyists hammered at our legislators daily. And, as one
senator told me, "What the utilities want - they usually get." Really?
Why does HQ want this so badly? Because the change will allow them to
crack open market share in the rest of New England and elsewhere.
Hydro-Quebec is expanding, with plans to dam more rivers. Now, Vermont
has given them what amounts to an endorsement to move ahead. Meanwhile,
Vermonters have been confused - indeed misled - that not granting HQ
"renewable" status would bar us from buying power from HQ. This is
simply not true and Green Mountain Power has acknowledged this.
I can't help but feel that we were duped! I'm not sure where the cunning
stopped and the naiveté started.
HIDING BEHIND
Proponents are hiding behind the scientific definition of "renewable
energy" as energy using "technology that relies on a resource being
consumed at a harvest rate at or below its natural regeneration."
However, isn't it common sense that existing and future mega-projects
such as HQ are an environmental disaster? People I've spoken to who
live near the Hydro-Quebec complex recently witnessed a section of the
lower Rupert River, now a trickle, running backwards. Is this then
considered "reversible renewable"?
During a recent appearance on a Vermont Public Radio call-in show, Rep.
Tony Klein, chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
and supporter of this change, was forced by concerned Vermonters to
repeatedly defend this provision. During the show, Klein said he hasn't
heard any Vermonters vocally opposed to buying HQ power, apparently
forgetting that 20 years ago this was a very contentious issue. When
confronted, he admitted that he, too, had been an opponent to HQ but
said that HQ is now conducting themselves with better environmental
practices. How do we know that? During the show, he acknowledged that
his committee had taken no testimony from Hydro-Quebec or anyone else
directly affected by the dams.
A landmass, the size of New England, has already been flooded --
releasing the greenhouse gas methane and drowning a myriad of wildlife.
(Tens of thousands of caribou drowned on their migration years ago).
Boreal forests have been clear-cut. Rivers have dried up. Fish have been
killed. And mercury has been released into the food chain.
And a wedge has been speared into the heart of remote Cree communities.
Does this fit into what Vermonters want to call "renewable"? To me
renewable is analogous with green and sustainable. This move is
insulting to Vermonters' sensibilities.
With this valuable "green stamp of approval," we have validated what
Hydro-Quebec has done and are encouraging them to continue destroying
the fragile ecosystems. Somehow, we lost our compass and, like lemmings,
followed each other off the cliff. And like the first domino to topple,
we have started a dangerous course of events for Vermont, New England
and the nation. Vermont has set a shameful precedent. Have we
established a new shade of "green" for Vermont?
Keefer Irwin, who has canoed extensively throughout northern Canada,
lives in Rochester, Vermont, and has followed the Hydro-Quebec issue for
over 20 years.
