23626 109348612427206 6913239 n

Our legal name as a qualified party in Maine is Green Independent Party. We are an affiliate of the Green Party of the United States.


All candidates in the State of Maine appear on the ballot as a Green Independent, except for our presidential nominee, who typicaly appears as simply Green.


As the Green Independent Party, our members are officially referred to as Green Independents.


We ask the media to be consistent with references of our party and members, using the same standards as they would all other parties.

After referencing Maine's Democratic Party, Libertarian Party or Republican Party, the press rarely then proceeds to reference their members as "Democratic Party members," "Libertarian Party members" or "Republican Party members." Often, we see a continued and unnecessary identification of our members as "Green Independent Party members."


Where "Democrats," "Libertarians" and "Republicans" suffice to identify members of those respective parties, so should "Green Independents" suffice to identify our members, especially when our party name, "Green Independent Party" has already been referenced in the article.


Please do NOT identify us incorrectly as the "Independent Green Party." This is NOT the name of our party. The press frequently makes this mistake, reversing these two words of our party's name.


The word "Independent" is an integral part of our party identity, as we view our party as being independent of the corporate influence that other parties are subject to. We also allow unenrolled voters (commonly referred to as "Independents") to vote in our party primary -- something that no other political party in Maine has yet allowed.


It is our precedent to allow unenrolled ("Independent") voters to influence our party by participating in our primary. Our name, Green Independent Party accurately reflects our independence from the type of politics that govern other parties, as well as the open door we hold for independent voters to participate in our primaries.


In all cases when the state party, its members or candidates (except for our presidential nominee) are being referenced, the entire legal state party name should be used: "Green Independent Party" to identify the party, "Green Independent" or "Green Independents" to identify a member or members.


The use of the term "Green" or "Greens" to identify our members is acceptable but not preferred, and should only be used upon second reference after having first referred to members as "Green Independents."



Green Independent Party

Green Independent

Green Independents

Greens (not preferred, but accepted if the correct "Green Independent" has already been used on first reference)



Maine Green Party

Green Party of Maine

Green Party member

Independent Green Party

Independent Green Party members.

Independent Maine Green Party


The only acceptable time to use the term "Green Party" absent the word "Independent," is when the reference directly relates to the national party--"Green Party of the United States" and its presidential nominee.


We appreciate the media's compliance with our preference to be attributed by our legal party name and legal enrollment identification as recognized by the State of Maine.

Portland finance officials get first look at proposed school budget

The district's $118 million spending plan would increase the school part of the tax rate by 5.4%.


Letter to the Editor: Mills is wrong to try to Eco-balance

Carter Home


What a total disappointment that the Mills administration has opted to follow the same old model of compromising the health of Maine's environment away. This is called eco-balancing and it employs the notion that CMP's offer to provide $248 million over 40 years will provide a benefit that is equal to or greater than the negative impacts of the 150 mile transmission line that will deliver “dirty power” from Quebec Hydro.

Mainers should be outraged that CMP is calling Hydro-Quebec power clean renewable power. (simply a lie – beyond fake news) I have visited the source of this power in Northern Quebec. It is a land of utter destruction. Rivers have been reversed and drained in order to create vast power head reservoirs. Thousands of square acres of forests have been destroyed, subsistent Native Canadian hunting and fishing grounds have been submerged, and thousands of caribou drowned. The once mighty Churchill Falls is nothing but a trickle. Canada seems to have ignored the lessons of landscape scale dam construction. More dam construction is planned for northern Quebec and Labrador. Buying this power will only encourage more dam construction.

The horrific landscape destruction, the clear cutting, the creation of flood basins and building of transmission lines all reduce carbon sequestration. In addition, the flooded areas have become huge methane (30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas) emitters from the anaerobic decay of massive amounts of detritus and soil organic compounds. When CMP and Hydro-Quebec say that this project will reduce carbon emissions the equivalent of 280,000 vehicles – it is totally a distortion of the truth. This energy is not clean energy. If allowed to transit Maine, it will mar permanently the Maine forest landscape.

Janet Mills is right when she says "we cannot afford to do nothing," but what she doesn't seem to understand is that if we are serious about mitigating climate change, authorizing a transmission line that will destroy Maine's forest and deliver greenhouse gas producing power to Massachusetts is not the answer. For too long, the status quo has been to deal in trade offs. Every time the environment is compromised there is one half less of healthy ecosphere left. Take the number 1, cut it in half what is left, one half, continue this process just 10 times and only 1/1024 is left. There is no room for compromising anymore – we have lost so much already.

Yes, investing in heat pump technology makes sense as does expanding the use of electric vehicles, but this needs to be accomplished, not as a trade off, but as a legislative action. As far as money for Franklin County communities and the offer of lower electric rates, these are just out and out bribes. In fact, if we are serious about climate change, we should not encourage more electrical consumption by offering lower rates. On the contrary we should be investing in ways to reduce consumption.

The truth be told there is no turning back from the ongoing catastrophic crisis of climate change. We have passed the tipping point and it is virtually impossible to reverse the oncoming changes. What we can do is make intelligent decisions to mitigate more extreme impacts and invest in adaption and survival strategies. The CMP corridor now being endorsed by Mills is taking us in completely the wrong direction.

Study after study has shown that the cheapest and best way to reduce carbon emissions is to protect forests. Over the last several decades there has been an effort to quantify the value of non-market goods and services provided by forests annually – this is often called natural capital. Natural capital’s currency included all ecological service: carbon sequestration, disease regulation, water filtration and purification, flood control, pollinator habitat, nutrient recycling, pest control, soil erosion prevention, air filtration, shade and cooling, and soil formation. Generally speaking half of the natural capital value of forests are related to carbon sequestration and storage in both trees and soils. The other half of the natural capital value is driven by ecological services related to air purification, water quality and water storage (TD Economics & Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2017)

Mills is wrong if she thinks allowing and supporting the destruction of forests in the production and distribution of electricity is sound policy. Her decision to employ the notion of eco-balancing is flawed and will only exacerbate the climate change crisis.

It is not too late for her to reverse course. We must encourage her to think clearly.

Jonathan Carter
Dir. Forest Ecology Network
Former Green Party Candidate for Governor
Lexington Township





Maine's Libertarians, Greens working together on many issues

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) - Two third-party political groups in Maine say they are working together on several aspects of their agendas about which they find common ground, including a shared opposition to mandatory vaccination and a desire to cut corporate welfare.

The Green Independent and Libertarian parties of Maine say in a recent joint statement they have "agreed to work together to promote pro-democratic policies and protect individual liberties." The statement includes 10 policy points, including "end regime change wars" and "teach and enforce our Bill of Rights," including new training for law enforcement officers.

The two parties say they are "united in our desire for honesty and integrity in our political system." They say they also "encourage other state parties, and our national parties to follow suit by engaging in mutually respectful dialogue."





Portland school board votes to double pre-kindergarten program over 5 years

The expanded program is expected to cost $3 million and offer full-day classes to about 260 children, which is about half of the 4-year-olds in the city.