Commonsense Environmentalism Being Destroyed By ‘Wind-Less Revolution’
September 5, 2024
Share
The Ocean State has become ground zero for the most important environmental battle in modern times. In recent months, the offshore wind enterprise (OSW throughout) has pushed new boundaries in challenging seminal issues pertaining to our [human] health and well-being – regressing even to the point of physical violence. The current state can be described as nothing less than “divisive” and is to our own detriment — commonsense environmentalism is being destroyed.
While under pressure from the previous environmental regime, the powers-that-be have agreed that we must do something [to combat climate change], and somehow arrived at a fast track massively scaled enterprise to facilitate OSW as the solution. Yet, there is stark disagreement and opposition from lesser-heard voices as the strategy may come with unacceptable costs to the very environment we are all seeking to protect.
This divisive wedge is upending the trust we’ve all had within the institution of science, which has historically favored environmentalism — most often assumed to be based on continued hypothesis-based inquiry, commonsense parsing of observable patterns and correlations, and without bias or influence.
Obvious, however, is that unbiased marine science and the resulting traditional environmental policymaking itself is not guiding rational decision making — in the case of OSW, infused funds are directing science objectives toward facilitating furtherance of industrial objectives. This is not a new phenomenon and is not necessarily a terrible thing under all circumstances. For instance, science is conducted within industry all the time. Drug companies conduct clinical trials, goods manufacturers conduct consumer safety experiments, and food producers evaluate methods to reduce contamination, to name just a few examples. All are critically important toward advancing their respective disciplines and improving safety for all of us.
Recent reports have started to reveal the types of conflicts brought by OSW, fueling lack of public trust. One example: London’s Natural History Museum has been under fire for accepting a sponsorship contract from Orsted which contained a gag clause. The clause prohibits the museum from making any statement that might discredit the sponsor. That sounds like a reasonable business contract term, though how far does this type of gag clause extend?
Transparency is needed to discern whether associated research is then subject to being scrubbed. For instance, if an affiliated scientist studies climate change and finds that an action from which the sponsor has a vested interest (oil/gas and various renewables) is cause for a negative environmental impact, is it even allowed to be reported? And will it be reported? Or will the line of scientific inquiry even be further pursued? These types of relationships can be positive, though they are very delicate and can become problematic conflicts that impede unbiased science from running its course.
Another example, closer to home, was EnergyCentral.com’s report that “if” a certain OSW project is selected, “then” a grant will be administered to several institutions. This is not a grant or donation; it is stated very clearly as a quid pro quo to entice project approvals. The infusion has since been named the Environmental Justice Grant. Have we resigned to such blatant selling of influence? Frankly, “justice” is not needed if injustices aren’t done to begin with.
It is quite literally a whale of a problem
Well-respected scientists from intuitions in receipt of these funding infusions are quoted repeatedly [in reference to increasing whale mortality since OSW inception] stating “there is no scientific basis for any of the stuff we’ve been hearing over the last year or two.” This is carefully crafted conjecture and sows great confusion — these same scientists co-authored one of the most comprehensive documents on the subject, long before OSW existed, establishing that marine mammals are well known to be impacted by anthropogenically generated noise and further study is required.
Here at OSW ground zero, researchers from the same institution said “it’s cheaper to pay professors and graduate students than to hire consultants.” This is a correct statement, and a great pitch to a for-profit enterprise when you are a state university in need of funds, as they all are. Consequently, the OSW work occurring off Rhode Island is based on academic data acquisition, not its independent analysis by an unbiased third-party consultant, which is always the case in these infrastructure programs. In hindsight it is an obvious conflict of interest, and the recurring promise of additional money is doing the talking.
While no one can fault a creative means to fundraise, the public needs to understand the conflicts that may arise. Here, it is a very dire situation — the commonsense environmentalism that comes from compassion for the environment is missing — we’re now left with business transactions to guide environmental policy. OSW is a heartless enterprise capitalizing on the concerns for climate change without adequate due diligence, forcing environmental powerhouses to remain silent, and leaving no room for compassionate intent.
I will spare the biology lesson, but it is all about middle-school level understanding of acoustics — sound travels very fast and far through water, and we also know that numerous marine species are dependent on sound for numerous aspects of their livelihood; these animals navigate the vastness of the oceans (often in conditions where vision is not useful) to hone in on each other, to attract mates, to give birth in opportune areas, to find food, to evade physical strikes against underwater mountains and other natural structures, and even avoid unnatural structures such as ships and ghost fishing gear. When their ability to navigate becomes compromised, there are injuries and deaths.
The permitting agencies for these projects already well recognize this as fact. For instance, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with issuing Incidental Take Authorizations (ITAs), which represent variances to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). “Take” is defined under the MMPA as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”
Huh?
Yes, permits are issued that allow mammal harassment. NMFS explicitly states that “Most incidental take authorizations have been issued for activities that produce underwater sound.” For just one of the projects in question, Revolution Wind, the permitted harassment accounts for numerous thousands of marine mammals.
Consequently, and by no surprise, there have been an increasing number of whale deaths since OSW has started, and with statistically significant correlations to noise-making activities. We all agree that correlation does not mean causation. However, scientists’ jobs are to study correlations. One hypothesis requiring study is that these mortality events are caused by natural events, or other stressors. Though the null hypothesis must also be considered — that dismissive opinions have forgone commonsense environmentalism because of gag clauses. An open question, and of great concern — are there any institutions with the capacity to properly parse out this correlation that are not engaged in conflicted relationships? Even some of the most respected scientists in the world have been quick to jump to the increase in whale mortality being the result of “vessel strikes,” without further analysis. Yes, this makes perfect sense — as we say “a deaf whale is a dead whale” and it is this root cause that desperately needs a closer look.
The public is dependent on science and educational institutions for disseminating scientific information. Here in the U.S., the Mystic Aquarium has been challenged when one recent humpback whale necropsy on Block Island was not performed completely “due to its remote location,” yet images circulated on social media of families with young children taking selfies with this deceased animal — it was not that difficult to access. Mystic has received funds from Orsted to study the impacts of their OSW activities on whale deaths, presenting one of these conflicts needing to be more transparent. The funds also supported the development of a public exhibit endorsing OSW. It is unclear if a gag clause is in place, like the British Museum.
In response to this whale fatality, a Mystic researcher was quoted as saying “Since 2016, only 11 dead humpback whales have been found in Rhode Island waters.” “Only” requires some context. The entire population of humpback whales within the western North Atlantic is around 13,000 animals, and 11/13,000 is 0.085% of the entire population. For comparison, “only” 0.087% of the world’s population was killed from COVID-19 — about 7 million people. Look at the panic that ensued. I’d argue that whales are just as important (probably more important) as humans to make the world turn.
The criticism OSW has drawn is a consequence of its own very narrow field of view — as some heroic measure and our only hope to save the planet. Will windmills magically change Earth’s climate in a few decades, undoing two centuries of anthropogenic industrial impacts? Absolutely not. So then, at what cost is it worth it, and who really benefits? If it is not the environment, it’s simply a new vehicle to move money as some “Blue Economy.”
The whales aren’t alone — science is easy prey
Each OSW project also weighs impacts to endangered species via a biological opinion. The document for Revolution Wind comes in at an overwhelming 657 pages. Referenced are 15 endangered or threatened species (according to the U.S. Endangered Species Act) which are unlikely to be impacted by the project. One of which is the Nassau grouper which does not live within 2,000 miles of the project location. We all love grouper, and I’m glad it got a nod. Thereafter the document references 11 endangered species which may be directly impacted, including a variety of whales and turtles.
The glaring omission, and it’s a serious one, is virtually no reference to sharks, tuna, billfish, swordfish — migratory species. NOAA has an entire program for managing these species, and there is no analysis from this group. Many of the sharks we have here in Rhode Island (more than a dozen species) are listed under various threat levels — vulnerable, threatened, endangered — and are subject to domestic and international fisheries management regulations. Sharks are known to be sensitive to low frequency sound and to electrical impulses, leaving a gap in the discussion of EMF from the subsea cables.
Confusing throughout these environmental impact and biological opinion presentations is that the laypersons’ definition of endangered or threatened is different than the federal government’s definition. The Biological Opinion references only those on the formal ESA list; though this is not the global standard. The Red List maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is what a school-aged child would reference when tasked with researching an endangered species.
Important to note is that IUCN data does not necessarily align with federally protected status for any given country – the law of the land is always slower going. A Red List query of those endangered, threatened, vulnerable, or data-deficient within the Rhode Island marine environment revealed a list of 192 species. That’s a delta of 181 species. Curiously, both the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and NOAA are IUCN member organizations. So, while a biological opinion may be written to the letter of the law according to the ESA, the omission of 181 species, even by reference for consideration is disingenuous if not unethical.
Who is responsible for monitoring the ongoing and recurring impacts to these 192 species, and cumulative impacts across multiple projects? Well, no one, and it’s unlikely the ESA will be amended very quickly. It’s a process requiring a lifelong commitment from someone wanting to champion the given species. Just one example is the Atlantic horseshoe crab. The horseshoe crab is referenced by the IUCN, and popularly considered to be endangered, though is not on the ESA list despite its being petitioned for review in 2023.
Consequently, the horseshoe crab is not referenced in the biological opinion document and will indeed suffer impacts from Revolution Wind. Horseshoe crabs are reasonably common within Narragansett Bay and will undoubtedly see habitat disruptions when trenching for cable placement. Who cares about horseshoe crabs? Well, you should. They’re among the most important marine species exploited to benefit human health, providing a natural source for proteins used to verify sterility of medications and medical devices — supporting more than a $100 million market. Impacts from OSW? Not a mention, but rest assured, your blackened grouper sandwich is safe.
Justification for ocean-related study and ultimate preservation all comes from the underlying acceptance that it is a critical resource to us — our lives depend on a healthy ocean — this is indisputable. The ocean is the world’s largest carbon sink, largest oxygen producer, and provides us with everything from food to medicine. So, leave it alone. Protect it. Don’t turn it into a construction site with unknown long-term consequences, all while hiding behind the letter of the law which will never keep up with reality.
All one must do is spend a brief time within inshore ports and harbors, where I spent the first 20 years of my career, to see how human industrial processes impact the natural environment. This critical interface of land and water should be fenced off — this is where border patrol is most needed. Industrialization reaching beyond these gates will just continue to drag the garbage, quite literally, along with us.
A mind-bending reality is that the overwhelming majority of those who study or otherwise make a living in marine-related fields have never experienced being out on or underwater firsthand. I can assure you with great confidence that there are no armies of scientists underwater at these OSW sites, certainly with no routine frequency. Data is acquired with sensors and robotics. It’s important and useful data but omits “the human element” — it is compassionless data, and therefore not reflecting the true value of the space and its inhabitants to decision-makers. Absent consideration for that value, we are selling the ocean way short, and consequently continuing to work in spite of our own well-being. This needs to change.
Humans are only compassionate toward what we understand, and frequently only understand what we intimately experience. In my own line of work as a diver, I consider it a gift to see and experience what I do every day, even when doing the most mundane of tasks observations are made, questions asked, scientific inquiry catalyzed, and most importantly, a compassionate position reinforced.
When considered from this direct personal interpretation of ocean space, it is a distinct impossibility that an industrialized process out on the ocean is without negative impacts. So, is the net impact to our benefit or to our detriment? That cannot be answered in metrics of carbon dioxide reduction. It cannot be answered with metrics of displaced fisheries; it cannot be answered with financial commitments to mitigation activities [mitigating environmental damage caused]. It can only be answered with deep personal reflection on what kind of world we want to live in. In my sincerest and most professional opinion, the answer will only come when considering compassion for the environment and its inhabitants, as it is not our planet. We only cohabitate.
To be blunt, “they” say there’s no impact to the whales. I say go ask the whales. I have extended an offer to any party interested in having the experience to come on out for a dive adjacent to a ship, adjacent to pile driving, adjacent to a bubble curtain, adjacent to running sonar, adjacent to a compromised power cable, adjacent to a failing physical structure. Once these things are experienced, and that experience is well conveyed and appropriately considered, then right and well-informed decisions will be made. Until then, our decisions are being made absent any common-sense environmentalism, and wholly blinded by a truly wind-less revolution.
Michael Lombardi is a Rhode Island resident and has spent in excess of 7,000 hours underwater providing services, performing scientific work, developing life-critical technologies, and taking on a variety of complex technical and social challenges throughout his 30-year career in the marine and undersea sector. His work can be found at www.oceanopportunity.com.
Categories
Join the Discussion
View CommentsRecent Comments
Leave a Reply
Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.
Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.
Well argued and presented Michael. Let us not ignore the avaricious nature of humankind, even some smart scientists, who might “bend” for the sake of self enrichment.
Thank you
I’ve been closely involved in the permitting process of onshore wind turbines for fifteen years. I’m a landowner and a four season outdoor person with a degree in biology. This piece is simply one of the best I’ve ever read on the issue of science and environmentalism and the wind industry. And somehow I knew that a full indictment of this industry would not be written until OSW came on the scene with its impact on the marine environment and those who know and care for it intimately.
This is a very nicely written piece. Given its clear calling out of OSW and some of the major environmental concerns of the wind farm projects I am frankly surprised that EcoRI allowed it to be published. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this.
Michael, great article. Thanks for sharing the other facets of these important issues. Ed Monaco
And thank you EcoRI for allowing other points of view to be presented. I’m pleasantly surprised.
This is a well researched and well written article. My wish is that a great many people read it. And a thank you to the editor who was brave enough to publish it.
Michael, thank you for bringing such clarity to the issues surrounding offshore wind.
Wow! I cannot believe this truly excellent, profoundly sane essay was published in ecoRI. Congratulations, Michael! You have achieved something many of us opposing OSW have never managed.
Could it be that ecoRI is finally seeing the truth of the OSW boondoggle? If so, perhaps this is a tipping point for those who have for way too long absolutely refused to consider the vast, cruel destruction of OSW. 🙏🏻
Constance, as a news organization, ecoRI News publishes a variety of opinions from individuals and groups. We’ve even published a letter to the editor from Green Oceans’ Lisa Quattrocki Knight. (https://ecori.org/a-letter-to-the-editor/) And as a news organization, we are not “for” or “against” projects, legislation, or politicians. As a newsroom, the only thing we are for is reporting environmental issues impacting our region and bringing information and viewpoints to the public. — Joanna Detz, ecoRI News publisher
Clearly Micheal Lombardi is passionate about marine life and the topic of offshore wind energy, a passion he developed from experiencing marine life intimately throughout his life. He says about the net impact of offshore wind, “It can only be answered with deep personal reflection on what kind of world we want to live in. In my sincerest and most professional opinion, the answer will only come when considering compassion for the environment and its inhabitants, as it is not our planet. We only cohabitate. ” I ask you to also consider whether is it possible that a scientist can say exactly this same thing about themselves yet come to the opposite conclusion, that offshore wind will be a corrective that produces a better world for marine species and for us? I recognize Michael’s passion because I too have spent many hours at sea on many different kinds of vessels, for example the Captain Bert, which if you ply Narragansett Bay waters with any frequency you will have seen it on its weekly mission to collect plankton and trawl for fish and bottom dwelling creatures for the purpose of creating a time series so we will know if human activity in the Bay is harming them. I have even seen the beauty of the sea creatures from the Johnson Sea Link, a manned underwater vehicle. I have daily viewed their beauty in a lab and now, despite being retired I can’t stop my self from going into the lab to view live plankton under a microscope as they come in form the weekly Bay sample. So I ask that you try to understand how that the same passion that both Michael and I share can bring me to the exact opposite conclusion, that offshore wind energy will be a corrective to the impacts that man has created from our use of fossil fuels.
Kudo’s to ecoRI for publishing this piece.
Every human construction endeavor – every bridge and road and building – has some impact on our environment. And sometimes they are tragic in nature. Insurance actuaries can tell us with some specificity the likelihood of a death occurring in the construction of a Newport bridge. It is not zero.
This article lists a parade of fears: ‘could be’, ‘might be’, ‘we can’t trust any of them because they’re all conflicted’. All are placed slightly out of context. In the opening paragraph the Sinclair-owned television stations’ report of a woman who sought to bully her way over the Newport wind discussion – and keep the public from hearing the panelist’s opinions – is somehow the victim ? Each other factual reference that I checked is similarly slanted to encourage generalized fear and doubt.
What this letter does not mention is the great public benefit that is intended to be gained by OSW. The ‘Charting The Wind’ report authored by Synapse for the Sierra Club (last I checked, those were the independent, mission driven good guys) estimates that starting in 2030 the proposed New England OSW projects will – for the next 30 years: avoid 14M tons of CO2 annually, save New Englanders $630M to $1.7B dollars in energy costs annually, provide $362 M of health benefits annually. And there’s more – too much to detail here.
The greatest threat to commercial fisheries and whales is climate change – caused by mankinds’ continued pollution of the planet with CO2 and other green-house gasses. This letter does not provide any insight as to how we can best address that challenge. It only provides a parade of ‘gussied-up’ and generalized complaints.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask hard questions about OSW – and make sure that we take as much care as possible that we construct these energy sources in as careful and prudent manner as we can. However – we do know that OSW is a meaningful part of the answer to the climate challenge – and the authors’ generalized complaints should be measured against that quite specific benefit.
Again – kudo’s to ecoRI for being an open forum.
However – this letter distracts and distorts – it does not inform or advance the OSW discussion.
Mr. Lloyd, thank you for your thoughts. The Sierra Clyb is no longer an independent good guy, and are very unfortunately on the receiving end of bought influence.
As far as alternate solutions – this is not an area I am expert in, though know with absolute certainty that onshore wind is about 1/3rd the price, and there is plenty of open space to pursue that endeavor. It’s not done at scale because of the impacts that are more readily experienced, including the eyesore. Offshore is out of sight, and out of mind.
The real solution, though perhaps just my naive opinion, is to reduce consumerism to the equivalent of a planet of just 4 billion people. Accommodating massive expansion of a species that over exploits, by continuing to exploit, is a race to the grave. Absent controlling population growth and dynamics, nuclear sounds far more logical, and has been used safely for decades including within small spaces with close human interactions such as submarines.
The other practical thing we should all consider is a transition away from big grid AC power distribution. It just isn’t needed at the home/consumer level. A home can operate on low voltage DC quite easily today, where 20 years ago it wasnt possible. This decentralizes energy dependence as DC can be harnessed locally and even personally very easily, without taxpayer subsidies or fees.
In my view – the mantra of our response to climate change has to be ‘and’. ‘Reduced consumerism’, and explore ‘alternative power distribution’. and OSW, and solar and even nuclear too (if any community will agree to host it).
What is often overlooked in these kinds of letters/articles is the tremendous amount of professional input from highly reputable organizations that has already gone into this process. The reason all our OSW turbines are more than 8 miles offshore is in no small part because the band of most migratory birds is within 8 miles of the shoreline. Thank the Audubon society. The requirement that monopiles have sound-deadening mufflers on them during ‘driving’, that construction does not occur while whales are migrating nearby, and that there are trained whale watchers onboard the construction vessels and strict rules that drilling will pause if a whale is sighted within a nautical mile of a monopile – thank the Conservation Law Foundation.
No-one doubts the sincerity underlying this piece. But how is it that , in is a 2,591 word article, there is not one single positive recommendation in it as to how OSW could be better. The only answer seems to be ‘No to off-shore wind’. And that’s not advancing the discussion.
There are no positive recommendations on how OSW could be better, as the opinion of the author is that it should not exist to begin with.
Humans are a terrestrial species, and generally irresponsible with natural resources. The notion that we can somehow do things right offshore is a complete fantasy when looking around at the messes made through industrialization here on land.
What hasn’t yet surfaced, though will soon, is that OSW opens the gates to other offshore industrialization activities, such as deep sea mining. It is in all our best interests to simply leave the ocean alone and for those who feel strongly about wind, turbines can be placed in every open field throughout the US. Once that is managed well, accounting for all concerns, I’d be willing to give OSW a fair chance.
Great article. Dont forget about the fin whale that was still alive , but dying in Rhode Island. Mystic euthanized it at 6:30 pm, then towed it out the next morning to do the necropsy. All the while, on NOAA’s FAQ for wind farms “the only way to see if there is inner ear damage is to do a necropsy within mere hours as that part of the body decomposes very fast”….so they waited nearly 20 hours to do it….”and weren’t able to find any damage.”
Find out who made this call! There’s your smoking gun.
WOW! Finally some sanity.
I love the oceans and the lives of oceans creatures are dear to me, as dear as they are to Michael Lombardi. I live next to the ocean, and I walk on Sachuest Beach every day. I have lived and worked on boats. I have dived in and sailed the oceans. Here’s the way I look at it. If we don’t lessen our dependence on fossil fuels in this decade and continue as we do now, the planet is going to die or be changed into an environment that no longer supports life as we know it. This day is not that far off, as witness to the extreme heat, fires and storms that are now evident in so many places. There have to be trade offs, unless the whole human race somehow completely changes its behavior and reduces its dependence on human made energy. You know this is not going to happen–human history and the history of social behavior predicts that this is not going to happen. So if wind power is a step in the right direction, even off-shore wind power, we have to face the fact that sacrifices are going to be involved. Your beloved environment happens to be the sea and its creatures. Many others value the woods, mountains and open spaces. Building wind farms anywhere brings out the NIMBY in all of us. But it’s a choice we are sadly going to have to make in order to save human and animal kind and their earthly environment. There will be sacrifices and choices. I for one am not giving up on offshore wind. I think it can be safely and sanely done, if regulation and environmental sanity prevail. We need to work on this, not get trampled by the greed of private enterprise, or by the fear and denial of NIMBYists, no matter how sincere or dedicated. The time is now, and the earth as we know it is in dire straits.
While this piece definitely gets me thinking about how industry always protects profits, I think the glaring issue is that anyone who truly pays attention to climate scientists understands we are out of time. We needed nuanced conversations decades ago, but the oil and gas industry intentionally prevented that. (See Drilled podcast Season 1, etc. etc.) Did anyone here care about the impact that the oil industry has had on whales and other marine life – FAR greater and longer reaching that what is supposedly occurring with OSW – or is it only now that O&G is fighting tooth and nail against the traction that renewables has gained as they seed our communities with fake environmental groups like Green Oceans (who are not pro-ocean but anti- declining profits)? Did anyone care about the giant underwater cables running across the ocean floor and up onto beaches when the internet was being built? OSW is not perfect, surely, but we are so far behind when it comes to stopping the runaway train of global warming and its effects. If my comment makes you angry, I get it. You can blame you friendly fossil fuel exec for the mess we’re in.
Unbiased Jo? You husband does not refrain from publishing scathing indictments of groups on this topic… who watches the watchmen?
Frank is an opinion writer for ecoRI News, and his pieces are clearly labeled as such, along with language, “His opinions don’t reflect those of ecoRI News.” When ecoRI News reports on the wind industry, we assign it to one of our news reporters.
Offshore wind has the potential of providing for the entire energy needs of the country if the grid exists to get it where it is needed. Continued burning of fossil fuels, causing global heating and ocean acidification, will have a catastrophic impact on marine life including phytoplankton which provides much of our oxygen. What is the solution?
Hello Harvey, thank you for your comments. There is no requirement or plan to replace fossil fuel use with wind energy. This is frequently misunderstood. Wind may be an important component of a strategy to reduce fossil fuel dependence, though is not an energy dense alternative, hence requiring thousands upon thousands of structures to produce something meaningful. An alternate energy dense solution would be nuclear, which is already used routinely around the world. It certainly carries its own risks, though dies not materially alter the entire ocean ecosystem.
There are federal laws related to coastal management that reference ‘water dependent use’ that are not being applied appropriately. Water dependent use refers to not materially altering the ocean/coastal environment unless the use case actually requires water (like a cooling facility, or perhaps water intakes for osmosis). For wind, there is no dependence on seawater for their function, so can just as easily be placed within every open field or across every mountain ridge, at 1/3 the cost of offshore. The ocean is just being viewed as wide open and available space, that is largely out of sight, and being abused.
Distilling this down from the evidence provided in this opinion piece:
– Orsted funded a museum’s photography contest and put in a gag order to not disparage oil rigs
– Seagrant and the US Department of Energy have a website and are directing public research funding towards efficiently managing and developing an industry in our publicly held waters through the RI Ocean SAMP and other funding opportunities
– Funding the Ocean SAMP to do a proactive area-wide study to facilitate siting and impact statements is cheaper than an ad hoc approach for every farm that relies on consultants
– Universities may receive funding from developers for workforce training for the future employees of these companies. Environmental justice grants and other community benefit agreements are also something that exists and may pose a conflict of interest.
– A professor from URI who is an expert on acoustics in the marine environment spoke against correlational anecdotes from people without any expertise in this space, and he was also part of a National Academies report that was much more equivocal on the matter of “marine mammals are well known to be impacted by anthropogenically generated noise” than the author here
– Revolution wind has an incidental take permit for marine mammals that MAY include harassing marine mammals. It also may not. As part of that linked permit, there are 30 pages of extensive mitigation requirements that go far beyond risk reduction practices of other marine industries that have actual proven links to whale mortalities.
– A report establishes a correlation between whale mortalities and offshore vessel activities. The report comes from an advocacy group, is written by authors without a record of, training in, or reputations for, scientific research, and finally the report isn’t peer-reviewed by other scientists.
– Mystic aquarium receives funding from Orsted to investigate marine mammal interactions with offshore wind and the author speculates they are incentivized to claim there is no effect, leaving out that if there is no effect, it’s unlikely they will receive any additional funding going forward to continue monitoring
– Sharks and migratory species are not included in the Revolution Wind biological opinion. They are (p35) and a sampling plan to look at effects is included (if brief). Two of the 43 Atlantic shark species managed by NOAA are classified as threatened (none endangered), the whole purpose of a biological opinion. Only one of the threatened species has any potential overlap with Revolution Wind, and it is a global stock whose reliance on the area as a portion of its range is vanishingly small.
Other claims with no evidence given:
– Windmills will have no effect on climate – no evidence provided
– Horseshoe crabs might be affected and might be endangered – no evidence given about the potential impact
– Scientists that study this have never been offshore – no evidence provided
– Is the net impact [of offshore wind] to our benefit or to our detriment? No attempt to look at this from a quantitative perspective despite attempting to document quantitatively all the negatives in the rest of the piece.
So another long-winded gish gallop with no credible evidence for impacts on endangered species and a series of anecdotes that are framed as though they might be conflicts of interest but instead mostly just includes best practices for research of marine resource use. The only substantive thing in here is the community benefit agreements – they do seem to set up bad incentives all around and need more research on whether they should even be allowed. Coastal communities are essentially extorting developers that have few options for transmission and shoreside infrastructure for benefits far in excess of impacts on those communities. These costs just get passed on to ratepayers making energy expensive for everyone.
NOPE Not On Planet Earth! Find your energy to power AI data centers somewhere else.
I understand that the planet is warming, but so many scientists have refuted the reliability of the models of future conditions. Why can’t we admit that and question our dramatic responses (i.e., OSW) may not be the right answer?
Hello RG, thank you for your concerned comments over gish gallop. I would warmly welcome you to visit the OSW sites, and/or the inshore cable trenching sites, underwater, to personally view and experience the gross disconnect between what is written in he biological opinions and reality.
On top of the myriad of fiscal issues, there is also a troubling pattern of permitting construction activities during peak migration seasons of various species – both endangered and not. Inshore, marine construction is planned during winter months when the seasonal migrators are gone. For obvious reasons, offshore construction in New England is not practical in the winter months. It’s not clear why this obvious disruption to all kinds of marine life is conceded. It is certainly not discussed in any permitting or planning document.
The biop addresses effects to endangered and threatened species through its 657 pages of thorough analysis using best available science. Anecdotes often inspire science, but in linked social environmental decision for public resources the bar should be higher for informed decision making. Publish a peer-reviewed research study if there is an effect you see missing.
Respectfully, the best available science omits, by choice, hundreds of IUCN listed species.
I’d be more than happy to pursue a thorough environmental survey and analysis for peer review, though it seems those in receipt of the funding have been too dependent on antiquated methodologies and disinterested in advancing the status quo. Perhaps, someday, this will change. It does appear that industry directed funds are boosting remote sensing and survey capabilities, though any resulting data comes after the fact, not doing any justice for the environment currently being impacted. Settling for the best available science is a political pacification of the entire institution of science – for half a century we’ve been saying how poorly understood the ocean is, though now apparently it’s well enough understood to turn it into a construction site and turn a blind eye to consequences – because it moves money. The system is now completely backwards.
There is a whole bunch of money being spent on pre-construction surveying for comparison later in BACI analysis, nevermind the extensive record of surveying of marine species that existed independent of wind. Also, just because the ESA and IUCN don’t 100% overlap doesn’t necessarily imply a problem. If you look at the biop for the species covered by the ESA, you’ll see that most of the evidence suggests impacts are minimal and that the take permits have extensive mitigation to further reduce any potential for impact.
I’m all for more spending on science in this space, but realize that delay on addressing climate change itself has massive costs for the marine environment. And turning the ocean into a construction site isn’t a new thing.
There isn’t even a 10% overlap between ESA and IUCN – huge discrepancy, and huge problem. And yet, NOAA and BOEM are member organizations.
It sounds as though you are assuming that OSW is an absolute requirement for effective climate action – it is not. Oceans are convenient sources of wide open space, and turning millions of acres into a construction site is a very new thing. Never been done, and shouldn’t be done. There’s no need for it. There is no water dependent requirement for the technology to function – put them in the desert, mountain ridges, kids soccer fields, wherever. When in proximity to already zoned industrial use areas, further impacts are minimal.
Other, more dense energy solutions are much more viable to make an impact at scale within a shorter period of time, such as nuclear. The Cold War era use of the term still stokes fear, but that’s not the same thing that’s already in wide use globally. Just a few modest sized reactors eliminate the need to do anything on the ocean at all, and it can be left alone to function the way it’s supposed to…without a construction site embedded in the Gulf Stream.
@Michael I suspect most readers here would welcome an evidence based version of this more comprehensive take on the matter.
There are just a couple dozen ESA species (most not even in this region) in the BioP documents. Close to 200 for this area within the IUCN. I don’t get paid to do others homework for them, though both sets of information are easy public access for reference.
Similarly, current ocean and coastal policy detailing water dependent useage is very easy to research. I’d suspect all of the lawyers have this on their desks as well. I and others are available to anyone requiring a third party consultant to help navigate these things – oh wait, we’re too expensive!
Oh, I wasn’t referring to the endangered species part – that kind of seems like a red herring given no evidence for any impacts to any of those species has been given. In fact, for the one species mentioned (horseshoe crabs) Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries surveys have been recently showing increased abundance despite increased wind activities. I was talking about placing this in context alongside all of the benefits from offshore wind.
It’s a pretty simple formula – no studies, no evidence. Those out on the water everyday (principally fisherman) can well speak to a myriad of newly exposed trends that align with OSW activity. But hey – they’re just a bunch of dumb fisherman, right? These trends will not be studied because funds infused into the system are not earmarked to parse out these trends, much like the whale issue.
It also sounds like you advocate that if horseshoe crabs are healthy in MA then it’s fine to trench all the way through to Quonset and again up the Sakonnet, both in RI. Again, my take is just leave the ocean alone. May all the horseshoe crabs everywhere live in peace. I welcome you along for a swim across the sakonnet, in pitch black 90’ of water, to personally experience their habitat which will be trenched and matted (where I guarantee not one scientist from the institutions in question have personally ventured to examine, at least in the last 25 years).
I almost forgot about the moon snails. Just north of the old stone bridge, in Tiverton basin, in 89-some feet of pitch black water resides an incredible population of moon snails. I’d say they’re scarce at best throughout the rest of the bay, based on observations across thousands of hours at the bottom of the bay.
Where is the EIS that describes how this concentrated population of moon snails will be annihilated when a cable dredge drags through? It doesn’t exist, because it hasn’t been evaluated. No one in their right mind would venture to that spot out of choice – the tide rips, it’s always cold, and it’s blacker than night… but the critical habitat indeed exists.
If whales are off limits, then we can campaign on saving the snails. There are 181 species to choose from that aren’t even getting a nod.
You are advocating for a strong version of the precautionary principle if you asking for decisions to be made on unknown effects based on anecdotes to species that have not even been deemed to be threatened or endangered in the US. I personally am happy we are using a precautionary approach that balances social costs and benefits instead, but we can all have our preferences.
The precautionary approach is just one small piece requiring further consideration. BOEM has argued that lease decisions are made on the best available science – the science community, for half a century, has argued that ocean related funding and resulting understanding is inadequate. Therefore, the best available science hasn’t yet been undertaken. Industrial infusions of monies do not support an increased understanding – they monitor resulting impacts of activities. Much like mitigation funds for inshore habitat losses, the natural concessions were made without a clear understanding of downstream impacts. Do the science first, and many of the precautionary items will no longer be precautionary.
Just one example is the past industrial dumping in the upper Narragansett Bay. The shortsighted view was that the industries brought social and economic benefits at that time. Now, in hindsight, we know it was catastrophic. It’s taken more than 70 years to reopen shellfish beds, and there remain areas throughout the bay that cannot be dredged due to high levels of contamination.
Offshore, for numerous reasons, this is all scaled up considerably. It’s been established that the life cycle for a turbine is 20-30 years. Then what? The needle will not move on co2 production in that amount of time, based on even hundreds of turbines. Population growth and resulting consumerism outpaces wind farm construction. The energy density just isn’t there. The documents supporting construction state this fact – that there is no expected or guaranteed result.
I do not support an experiment spanning thousands of miles along the East Coast, which is already revealing correlations of concern, is smack in the middle of natural migratory paths for species that have evolved for millions of years to function well (better than we do), and comes with a myriad of hazards impacting other water dependent use activities. Makes zero sense.
Yes, wind can be used to make electricity. Put them in every open field, every desert, every mountain ridge. Those fights can be had by those protecting those habitats. The ocean is not a big empty fish bowl that we can go pollute more than we already have. Again, I welcome anyone wanting to see and experience the impacts of various underwater construction activities to come on out.
You missed the “available” part of best available science.
I didn’t miss it. It’s an abuse of an already suppressed discipline. Completely disgusting.
If this was about saving the planet, the big infusions would be made out of a genuine care for the ocean so the s hence was conducted first, as part of a thorough EIS. Instead, they are marketing funds to suppress adequate understanding and force acceptance of the wind initiative for profit. Science first.
One of the opinion writers for ecoRI News is generally always in favor of the wind turbine political agenda.
The recent microplastic environmental damage from the Nantucket wind turbine is worse than an oil spill. ( 50 to 70 tons)
The cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in # 6 bunker oil last around 5 years microplastics last forever.
Whales deafened from offshore wind construction can not navigate, communicate or feed themselves. The navigate themselves into ship strikes. A deaf whale is a dead whale.
It’s nice to see eco RI taking a 50/50 journalistic view.