by Jonathan Reisman

I drove down to Augusta under the theory that showing up at the work session for LD 495, requiring the DEP to issue an estimate as to how much adverse climate change their policies were averting and at what cost to consumers in terms of energy prices, might influence the outcome. The DEP testified neither for nor against, admitting that the estimates could be provided at minimal cost.

The committee issued a divided report along party lines, with majority Democrats voting ought not to pass (ONTP), in congruence with state environmental groups. Two principal reasons were given:

• Unnecessary Duplication. Opponents claimed that cost analyses were already required under Maine’s Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), and thus the law was unnecessary, wasteful, and duplicative;

• The Climate Action Plan asserts that the cost of doing nothing is extremely high, which apparently means that no assessment or analysis of climate policy fixes is necessary or recommended.

I have been involved/observing Maine climate policy for over 25 years, and I have never seen one of these supposedly required MAPA cost analyses. Nevertheless, they will in the future be frequent subjects of Freedom of Access information requests.

The majority ONTP report suggests that Maine is unlikely to get an honest, bi-partisan, effective, equitable, and accessible climate and energy policy, which is sorely needed and long overdue. Instead, we will get more of the same dishonest drivel which is driving up our energy prices, making the grid less reliable, and averting no climate change whatsoever. As a special extra bonus, our climate policies are having an adverse disparate impact on the 2nd Congressional District and rural Maine. Thank you, Governor Mills and allied climate alarmists — may I have another?

The Environment and Natural Resources Committee has not concluded their policy malpractice yet and will hold public hearings on March 12 on two bills — LD 499 and 825 — to ban geoengineering, which might actually avert some climate change. Here is a portion of the testimony I have submitted:

“...I am testifying neither for nor against because while I believe that while there is good reason to be wary of the ecological, political, and economic risks associated with geoengineering, there are also reasons based on Maine’s Climate Action Plan, 2024 update, and the potential threat to Maine’s shellfisheries from decreasing ocean alkalinity, to not foreclose the geoengineering option.

“Specifically, Maine’s Climate Action Plan and 2024 Update maintain that the costs of doing nothing is unacceptably high. Advocates have argued for expensive energy policies to address a climate emergency and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition away from fossil fuels. If adverse climate change effects are an existential or near existential threat, geoengineering should not be taken off the table.

“I am also specifically concerned that decreasing ocean alkalinity poses a potential existential threat to Maine’s shellfish industries. Particularly in areas like Machias Bay, geoengineering may have to be a part of sustaining shellfisheries.

“I urge the Committee to amend these bills to allow for a reasoned consideration of the potential risks and rewards associated with geoengineering, and how Maine’s climate policy should address this technology. I can’t say I’m confident that either the political or actual climate policy that emerges from this legislature will be sustainable.”