Maybe is an important word to use when making decisions that really impact our lives. Maybe we should fix the car we have before we decide to get a new one for instance. Governor Mills, I’m asking that you examine all the ramifications of your present plan to use Sears Island as the site for Searsport’s floating offshore wind facility. I don’t think you’ve done that.

Maybe overlooking or ignoring Mack Point is a big mistake. Mack Point is already heavily industrialized and its proposal to build the facility could well be more viable given it already has adequate roads and rail plus a building site that would with planned modifications be exactly right for the project.

Maybe the state has wrongly decided that developing Sears Island is less environmentally harmful than Mack Point. Maybe you should pay more attention to the current Mack Point proposal, which contradicts the State’s claim that vastly more dredging would be required there. If the state’s dredging figures are found to be inaccurate, why is dredging considered one of the main reasons to choose Sears Island?

Maybe it’s manipulative for your public information to say that only Sears Island would provide local jobs when the same jobs would be available at Mack Point.

Maybe it’s unlikely that the State could possibly mitigate the severe environmental impact that would occur should the project be built on Sears Island—impacts on the over 200 species of migratory birds, the myriad wetlands and mature, diverse forests and the local marine species that now benefit from Sears Island in a natural state. Maybe your choice to downplay these effects is a PR decision, not one based on careful analysis.

Maybe the time consuming, expensive and environmentally demanding task of making Sears Island ready for this site would result in Maine’s being outcompeted in its goal to create state of the art wind technology, and thus this technology would be considered obsolete.

Maybe the state has chosen to ignore Governor Baldacci’s 2009 Sears Island Protection Initiative (SIPI) final report, that concluded Sears Island should be a last resort for any industrialization — not the first choice.

Maybe both last year’s and this year’s comprehensive reports on cost estimates for developing each of these sites have been downplayed or even made unavailable because they conclude that costs are either similar or that Sears Island could cost more, and because you want so badly to industrialize Sears Island.

Maybe you should pay more attention to your very own words, from Maine Won’t Wait’s Offshore Wind Road Map, which states Maine is committed to protecting and preserving the Gulf’s marine species, habitats and wildlife, and to pursuing responsible development of offshore wind technology that advances renewable energy with as few adverse impacts as possible.

Maybe you’ve spent far less time than needed in order to examine the immense value of a place truly unique not only to our state but to the East Coast in general- a place easily accessible to tens of thousands of people who visit each year seeking some respite from their often hectic lives. Maybe your current plan will forever change the way people experience this place.

Maybe you’re depriving the town of Searsport from keeping Sears Island a part of its quality of life.

Finally, maybe the critical importance of fostering future stewardship has been overlooked. Sears Island’s trails, shoreline and overall diversity create hands on opportunities for our children, and for their children as well. Shouldn’t that be the ultimate goal for any comprehensive climate plan?

Maybe you need to do take a much deeper look into the true costs of industrializing Sears Island. So far, that has not happened.

Beverly Roxby lives in Belfast