A Frank Take

Whale of a Tale: Local Anti-Wind Crowd Spins Yarns


Opponents of offshore wind claim they are concerned about the health of whales in the waters off southern New England. Their concern, however, is limited to the installation of turbines. (istock)

As Earth spins into a deepening climate crisis, how we continue to power society will determine our fate. So far, our actions have been guided by greed, selfishness, and lies.

Bad actors and special interests have created a bubble of climate misinformation, downplaying the significant negative impacts associated with the burning of methane (natural gas), oil, coal, gasoline, diesel, and propane. The goal of these misinformation campaigns is to manipulate public perception and sow doubt and confusion that leads to inaction and allows the fossil fuel industry to continue to rake in record profits. (The industry has reaped $2.8 billion a day in profit for the past 50 years, a 2022 analysis found. Since 1970, the vast total pocketed by fossil fuel companies and petrostates is $52 trillion.)

In the meantime, continued reliance on these poisonous fuels is putting us and the future of many other species at risk.

This deception has now moved out to sea, where it hides behind whales. Windmills cause cancer, and now offshore wind turbines are responsible for the slaughter of the planet’s largest animals.

A post on one local anti-wind blog is titled “Ocean Wind Killing Whales To Save Polar Bears.” A local anti-wind website makes this unfounded claim: “Industrializing the ocean with offshore wind farms will drive whales to extinction, decrease oxygen production, compromise carbon dioxide absorption, threaten fish stocks, decrease biodiversity, and diminish ocean currents.”

The status quo is already doing all of that and much worse.

Whenever we publish a story about offshore wind, comments below the story, emails to staff, and letters to the editor quickly appear, claiming these water-based turbines are ruining the acidifying marine environment.

One of these emails recently claimed, “Sonar is used while constructing ocean wind turbines. Ocean Wind Turbines kill whales.” It included a link to a story with this lead:

“When naval ships and other sea vessels use sonar, many whale species flee for their lives; some even strand themselves on beaches in a desperate attempt to escape. Now, scientists have discovered the most likely reason: The loud sounds trigger the same fear response as when the animals hear calls emitted by one of their most terrifying predators: killer whales.”

The story makes no mention of offshore wind turbines.

No energy source is benign. From installation to operation, they all come with consequences — environmental, societal, and cultural. Some more than others. Legitimate concerns (e.g., not infringing upon whale migration corridors) must be studied, discussed, mitigated, and/or avoided. Renewable energy shouldn’t be called clean, but it is a whole lot cleaner than fossil fuels, especially when it is sited responsibly. It’s why Rhode Island’s failure to effectively incentivize the development of solar on rooftops, carports, and already-damaged areas will haunt future generations.

The concerns of southern New England’s anti-offshore wind crowd, however, never spill over to the polluting gas and oil platforms that mar many of the waters off the U.S. coast, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. Probably because there are no such rigs in Rhode Island Sound.

They don’t mention sonar is used to detect leaks from offshore fossil fuel infrastructure. They fail to note ocean military training drills use sonar, and live munitions. They disregard the fact the primary causes of mortality and serious injury for many whales, most notably the North Atlantic right whale, are from entanglements with fishing gear and vessel strikes.

Even though data show that North Atlantic right whale mortalities from fishing entanglements continue to occur at levels five times higher than the species can withstand, the anti-wind crowd isn’t calling for fishing gear to be pulled from local waters or the use of ropeless fishing technology made mandatory. They aren’t demanding vessels be equipped with technology that monitors the presence of whales in shipping lanes.

They ignore the fact the development of offshore wind is the most scrutinized form of renewable energy. After reading this column, they will allege I and/or ecoRI News are in the pocket of Big Wind. We’re not. (A few wind energy companies have advertised with us, but they didn’t spend nearly enough to bankroll a golden parachute, or even a reporter’s salary for a month.)

The anti-wind crowd doesn’t offer any real solutions to drastically reduce the amount of heat-trapping, polluting, and health-harming greenhouse gases that humans are relentlessly spewing into the atmosphere.

Are we supposed to do nothing to mitigate the emergency we created? Should we just keep applying pressure until the system breaks?

Yes, at least according to those who like to blame China for the climate crisis. It’s a common comment on renewable energy stories, mostly likely generated by Russian troll farms or Koch brothers-paid insurgents. This comment was posted under a recent story about offshore wind:

“People freaked out over global CO2 had best realize that China is the main global emitter — as well as the source of solar and wind equipment manufactured primarily from a coal energy base (not to mention employing horrendous practices such as using child labor to mine needed materials for their products). Buying panels and turbines from them in essence contributes mightily to CO2. Real environmentalists should focus more on countering the threat from China and be more accepting of what can be transitional, small-footprint energy sources like natural gas and nuclear. US developers and China are making big money from US subsidized solar and wind — so I understand much of the passion to push these projects on the nation.”

There’s so much deception in that paragraph it would take another article to sift through all of it. But let’s examine three of the misinformation nuggets:

Since 1751 the human world has emitted more than 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. The United States has emitted more climate emissions than any other country, nearly 400 billion tons or about 25% of historical emissions, according to Our World in Data. Carbon Brief says humans have pumped some 2,500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1850, with the United States responsible for the most, about 20% of the global total. Currently, the top three greenhouse gas emitters — China, the United States, and India — contribute 42.6% of total global emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for only 2.9%, according to the World Resources Institute.

Globally, governments spend more than $500 billion annually on fossil fuel subsidies, according to a 2020 report. Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion a year, according to the Environment and Energy Study Institute.

While it takes energy — most of it, at this moment anyway, from fossil fuel burning — to manufacture solar panels and turbine blades, it also requires the same energy to build fossil fuel infrastructure and nuclear reactors.

Another go-to comment is that industrial wind turbines, on land or at sea, kill birds. They do, but, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the biggest threat to the avian species we like to watch is the millions of acres of habitat that are lost or degraded every year due to development, agriculture, and forestry practices. Millions of birds are directly killed by collisions with human-made structures, such as building glass, communication towers, electrical lines, vehicles, and, yes, wind turbines. Cats also kill lots of birds.

Few if any of the names, social-media handles or email addresses of the local anti-wind crowd appeared during our extensive coverage of the fossil fuel power plant proposed for the woods of Burrillville. They didn’t create websites and start blogging about the dangers of the planned natural gas/diesel facility.

They’re speaking up now because several offshore wind projects have been proposed for the waters off southern New England. They don’t like it, because they own multimillion-dollar waterfront homes in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, or live near the region’s coast.

If these renewable energy projects were instead proposed for the Gulf of Mexico, we likely wouldn’t have heard a peep from these concerned whale watchers. If these offshore turbines were instead proposed for open space in view of their second homes, the whales would be forgotten and it would be all about birds and bats.

The local anti-wind crowd enjoys the benefits of the energy generated by Burrillville’s existing power plant, the power plant on the bank’s of Providence’s polluted waterfront, and from the oil rigs off the coast of Texas and Louisiana to blog, email, and tweet (recent example: “WOW. Just WOW. How much does B$G W$ND ‘donate’ to your cause? You should be embarrassed for having published this. Get up the curve with some facts and science.”) about the evils of offshore wind.

A recent white paper authored by a group of local anti-wind crusaders is filled with wind dread and 150 citations that are supposed to portend the atrocities offshore renewable energy production will unleash.

The paper goes to great lengths to discredit offshore wind energy. Some of the leaps are quite impressive.

It claims offshore wind isn’t really green — honestly, that label really means nothing; what is important is the fact renewable energy is significantly cleaner than the burning of fossil fuels — because of (1) indirect sources of carbon dioxide produced during the installation of wind turbines, such as cement production; (2) plankton destruction; (3) increased biofouling of artificial reefs; and (4) the overseas mining of rare earth metals.

Indirect sources of CO2 are also emitted when building power plants, offshore rigs, and dams, but those indirect climate emissions will decrease as more and more cleaner energy is added to the power grid. Eventually, the cycle would be broken.

Marine plankton may be at risk of extinction as the planet continues to warm, according to a 2020 study. Plankton living in the world’s coldest waters surrounding Antarctica are at the highest risk of disappearing. The study noted that as global temperatures rise, it’s unlikely that marine plankton populations will make it through uncompromised.

Offshore wind turbines are being planned/built to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not as artificial reefs. Yes, turbine bases are often touted for producing marine habitat, but they don’t come close to the real thing. The problem is climate change is putting natural coral reef ecosystems at risk. Warming marine waters cause thermal stress that contributes to coral bleaching and infectious disease.

Mining for rare earth metals is environmentally destructive and frequently socially unjust, but so too is mountaintop removal mining, mining for tar sands, and extracting oil from land and sea. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas releases large amounts of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas.

The paper makes the connection that bats killed by offshore wind turbines will allow mosquito populations to rise, thereby increasing the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases, such as Zika, West Nile, and eastern equine encephalitis. Spinning turbine blades do kill bats, but these winged mammals have bigger concerns, including widespread habitat destruction and fragmentation; white-nose syndrome, a fatal fungal disease of hibernating bats; and accelerated climate change.

Some of the paper’s claims are profoundly asinine:

“Given the health consequences of biodiversity loss, expansive wind farm installations could violate the internationally recognized Human Right to Health.”

The burning of fossil fuels surely must violate our right to health, especially for those humans who live near these polluting facilities — you know, low-wealth families and people of color.

“Wind farms can increase water and air temperatures, redistribute humidity, and alter atmospheric flow, thereby modifying local weather patterns and regional climate.”

That is exactly what the burning of fossil fuels is doing, just at a far greater scale and pace.

The paper’s authors make the claim that offshore wind projects will “interfere with strategic areas of national defense and transportation safety.” A ship crashing into a wind turbine, or an oil rig, is certainly a possibility, but how does offshore wind impact national security? They don’t explain.

Their solution to the climate crisis is to immediately convert coal plants in the United States to natural gas. They also like the future potential of fusion, and the idea of floating solar cells that can be “safely installed on reservoirs.” They say solar panels along highways makes sense — an idea the state of Rhode Island has failed to grasp.

The paper concludes that, “Neither wind nor the ocean are inexhaustible, and our willful ignorance of these limitations could drive climate change beyond the tipping point.”

Two centuries of burning fossil fuels has already brought us precariously close to that point.

Buried in the 23 pages, however, is a bit of honesty: the ruination of viewscapes. The paper’s authors say they are concerned about vacations being wrecked by the sight of wind turbines, some of which would be 18 miles or more offshore.

“Although some visitors may be comforted by the sight of turbines stretching 20 miles across the horizon, others may prefer the pristine beauty of a natural ocean view and will choose to travel elsewhere, harming the economy. The visual impact will affect over 600 popular destinations, including 178 public beaches in MA and RI.”

To make that comment appear more fact than opinion, a citation is included — a 32-page report titled Economic Impact of Visitors in Rhode Island 2020 prepared for the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation. It makes no mention of offshore wind turbines.

The views they are actually concerned about are from their seaside decks and beachfront properties. The same reason the Kennedys opposed Cape Wind.

Frank Carini can be reached at [email protected]. His opinions don’t reflect those of ecoRI News.


Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. Thank you for your time taken and exhaustive research needed to write this great article. Once again, the bottom line to me is that unless the birth rates continue to decline at least until this climate crisis is neutralized, we will populate ourselves into extinction – the earth simply can not continue to provide for all of our demands ad infinitum. And the only reason we do not hear the UN and governments admit this is because it would be bad for business, bad for the global economy ( less “ consumers” being born)….and fear of “ who will take care of us when were old” , all greedy and selfish reasons.
    Folks need to look at the big picture and beyond their own lifetimes to save the future for those that do survive past this generation.

  2. Well and fairly documented, Frank. Another argument that the anti offshore wind groups are using to delay or obstruct is that more scientific studies need to be done before construction begins. As you well point out, continued global fossil fuel combustion is undeniably causing significant ecological damage to the climate, plants, and animals. Renewable energy sources including offshore wind are a necessary choice to actively reduce global CO2 emissions. I expect that studies of the early installations will show some negative and likely also positive ecological effects. The offshore wind projects in Europe show that there have been no major negative effects. The effects of the US continuing to rely on fossil fuels as the primary energy resource will make any negative effects of New England offshore wind look trivial. Let’s continue studies as the early projects are built and begin operation. What we learn will inform and improve the design and implementation of the later projects.

  3. The Little Compton based anti wind activist have been very clear. They are making every argument they can against it because, their ocean view, from their 7 million dollar home is going to have wind turbines in the distance. They are just writing words stocking fear and anger as good NIMBYs do.

  4. You do not address the primary arguments, which begin with the federal estimates of the number of marine mammals that will be exposed to unsafe levels of noise. The primary issue is the adverse effects of this “harassment” as it is officially called. These potentially include being driven into entanglement and ship strikes. Official harassment started in 2016 and the humpback whale death rate tripled, while the population decline of the severely endangered right whales began as well. Here is a bit on that:




  5. On the defense issue here are three points from Van Drew’s proposed House Resolution that tough on it
    “Whereas the Department of Defense’s Offshore Wind Mission Compatibility Assessment ruled much of the offshore east coast a “wind exclusion zone”, for defense and defense training reasons;

    Whereas, according to the Department of Defense, ARSR–4 primary long-range air surveillance radars would be “very susceptible” to interference from wind turbines, and that “target tracking abilities decrease as turbine number, size, and density increases”;

    Whereas the Department of Defense acknowledged in May 2019 that noise generated by offshore wind turbines disturbs acoustically sensitive environments and may interfere with offensive- and defensive-based military sensors, and that currently there are no Department of Defense-supported unclassified studies that have been conducted regarding this topic;”

  6. Cathy, a significant problem with understanding the effects of offshore wind is that there are well over two thousand of pages of documents that relate to NewEngland Offshore Wind and you often have no idea where to find definitive information vs letters to local papers. To know more, skim NOAA’s 25 page marine mammal Incidental Harassment Authorization for Vineyard Wind 1 to see the practices developers must follow to prevent injury or disturbing their behavior. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-05/VWconstr_FinalIHA_OPR1.pdf?null= Also take note of the table on page 22 which identifies the permitted harassments by species. You will see that there are zero injury authorizations (level A) for the North Atlantic Right Whale. I am impressed by the high level of standards to which the NOAA holds the developers to keep the marine mammal impact limited.

  7. Frank – Your article was interesting and made many valid points however I don’t believe it is necessary to attack the group from RI who are discussing some of the things that the offshore wind proponents, including our State and Federal government fail to address. I spent my entire working career evaluating environmental impacts and I can tell you that no other projects of this scale could push forward like the wind energy projects without properly evaluating potential impacts. I have also been fishing recreationally offshore of RI for over 45 years and I am very concerned about the potential that industrialization of these fishing areas will wipe out this industry that supports thousands of RI jobs and contributes millions of $ to the RI economy. If developers were required to actually completely evaluate potential impacts many of those impacts could be avoided and if government would evaluate alternatives such as nuclear and shifting coal to gas we could make better progress using technologies with which we have more familiarity. We need to slow down the industrialization of our offshore environment. It should not be “proceed with offshore wind at any cost” as our Federal government has proclaimed.

  8. Thank you Frank. This is an article I can share widely that is ON POINT!! You debunked the misinformation with out having to resort to anything but logic and a clear explanation of examples. As a scientist it is too easy to down into the weeds that is information not helpful to most readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.


We use cookies to improve your experience and deliver personalized content. View Cookie Settings