Voices

A shameful shade of green

Should the massive Hydro-Quebec qualify for the state’s ‘renewable energy’ status?

Vermont is named and known for its green. But shamefully, our “green stamp of approval” is less obvious. At the end of legislative session, Vermont granted Hydro-Québec, a massive foreign enterprise, a “renewable energy” status. This provision was attached to an otherwise good renewable energy bill, which began in the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee around late January.

After hearing of this proposal in mid-April, I immediately began to contact some of Quebec's Cree and non-Cree that live in the aftermath of destruction that Hydro-Quebec has wrought in northern Quebec over the years.

Freddy Jolly and Roger Orr - two James Bay Cree who have opposed past Hydro-Québec projects - sent me testimony that I read to the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

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. Richard McCormack, John Campbell, and Mark 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.

Hydro-Québec is a provincial corporation on a scale that is almost unimaginable. (“Avatar” in real life and time!) Quebec politicians want to see the province more financially independent. What do they have to exploit and export? A vast system of wild, free-flowing rivers that flow into James Bay. According to the Montreal Gazette, 13 out of their 16 major rivers have already been disfigured.

The Cree who lived on those lands were deceived and sold out by their leaders. They signed agreements for compensation, knowing that Hydro-Québec would take the land regardless. Then they were slapped with a gag order not to protest.

Gov. James Douglas and our two largest utilities have been regurgitating Hydro-Québec's propaganda in justifying this renewable status. Key supporters of this provision, when asked whether they had ever seen firsthand the devastation or talk to the Cree, were tongue-tied. What they do say is that Hydro-Québec 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.”

* * *

Why does Hydro-Québec want this so badly? Because the company is in full expansion mode, and this status will allow them to crack open larger market shares far beyond Vermont. (In February, Quebec Premier Jean Charest was lobbying in Washington, D.C., for a national renewable energy status.) Now, Vermont has given the firm what amounts to an endorsement to move ahead. Meanwhile, Vermonters have been confused - indeed, mislead - that not granting Hydro-Québec's “renewable” status would bar us from buying power from the company. This is simply not true, and Green Mountain Power has acknowledged this.

Proponents are hiding behind a scientific definition of “renewable energy.” However, isn't it common sense that mega-projects such as Hydro-Québec's are an environmental disaster? People I've spoken to who live on the lower Rupert River, now a trickle, have witnessed the river running backwards. Is this then considered “reversible renewable?”

During a recent Vermont Public Radio call-in show, Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee and supporter of this change, was repeatedly forced to defend this provision. Klein said he hadn't heard any Vermonters vocally opposed to buying Hydro-Québec's 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 Hydro-Québec but said that the company now has better environmental practices. How can he say that when he acknowledged that his committee had taken no testimony from Hydro-Québec or anyone else directly affected by the dams?

I think most Vermonters see “renewable” as analogous with green and sustainable. A land mass the size of New England has already been flooded, releasing the greenhouse methane gas 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. A wedge has been speared into the heart of remote Cree communities.

Does this fit into what Vermonters want to call “renewable?”

With this valuable “green stamp of approval,” we have validated what Hydro-Québec has done, and we are encouraging them to continue destroying fragile ecosystems. Somehow and somewhere we lost our compass. 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?

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates