On Sunday afternoon, Jan. 28, Edgartown police on Martha’s Vineyard received a call reporting a dead whale had washed up near a private beach. The news was bad: it was a North Atlantic right whale, a critically endangered species numbering fewer than 360. Worse, it was a young female, meaning that the species had not only lost her, but potential future generations of offspring.
Officials and scientists faced winds and cold temperatures, venturing into the water at times to ensure the whale stayed anchored with a line. Immediately, they saw that the whale had rope embedded in her tail — a clear sign of entanglement, a leading cause of injury and death for right whales.
When weather conditions improved a few days later, they moved her to a more secure space on land and started a thorough post-mortem examination. Close-up photographs taken by scientists and reporters at the beach show the rope dug into her flesh.
The day the whale’s body was reported, NOAA Fisheries’ first online notice about her death included the detail about the rope. A few days later, NOAA Fisheries announced investigators’ preliminary finding: the young whale suffered from chronic entanglement.
But by then, misinformation about the whale had spread. People and organizations, some not based in Massachusetts, were quick to draw conclusions on social media that denied or minimized information from the scene.
Facebook posts and comments claimed, without evidence, that reporters are lying in their coverage of the whale death, that NOAA Fisheries and others are engaging in a “coverup,” or that someone “added” rope to the whale’s tail after it washed up to “spin” an entanglement story.
Instead, they claimed, without evidence, that offshore wind development was responsible for the whale’s death.
It’s just the latest example of how some opponents of offshore wind development create and disseminate misinformation. These opponents often call for stopping wind projects entirely, and now are using the latest whale death to support that argument.
They also make unfounded or speculative claims about wind power’s impacts on commercial fisheries. Such forms of misinformation continue to challenge the wind industry and the government agencies regulating it at a time when Massachusetts is counting on offshore wind to produce more renewable energy to address climate change.
Misinformation at Cape Cod conference
A day before the dead right whale was reported on the Vineyard, a Cape Cod organization, Save Greater Dowses Beach, hosted a conference in Hyannis on offshore wind development. More than a dozen speakers shared their concerns about offshore wind. Their comments ranged from caution to unequivocal opposition.
The speakers’ backgrounds varied — physicians in orthopedics and gynecology, a psychiatrist, and members of the fishing industry. Some are residents of the Cape, where cables land (or may soon land) underneath local beaches to connect offshore wind electricity to the grid. Others traveled from Maine, New York and Rhode Island, where offshore wind is also setting roots.
At the click of each slide, some of the more than 200 attendees took notes and snapped photos of detailed charts, report excerpts, and pictures of dead whales projected onto a big screen. There were head shakes and concerned expressions. One man whispered to another attendee, calling offshore wind deplorable: “They’re going to build something that’s going to fail, is what they’re essentially saying.” Other attendees said they were not opposed to offshore wind but came to the conference out of curiosity.
Some speakers were either implying or more explicitly stating that offshore wind projects on the East Coast will indubitably fail and create net harm for the environment, that project work has killed whales, and that wind farms will destroy the fishing industry.
Many scientists disagree with those claims. At a minimum, they state that we don’t yet know what some of offshore wind’s impacts will be, and that more research and data are needed.
Scientists speak in measured ways; they note the knowledge gaps about potential impacts and operate under a key scientific principle that correlation does not equal causation.
Some opponents of offshore wind, however, including presenters at the January conference, speak with confidence about what offshore wind’s impacts will be or have been. At a microphone or on Facebook, they present possibility as certainty and correlation as causation.
Whale #5120 and the rope that entangled her
The right whale that died, #5120, was first reported with rope around her tail in 2022 in Canada, when she was only a year old and not yet fully grown. She was sighted again entangled in Cape Cod Bay in 2023. Attempts to disentangle her were unsuccessful.
NOAA Fisheries said the initial necropsy of whale #5120 showed no evidence of blunt force trauma, which would be a sign of vessel strike. They did conclude, though, that the whale suffered from chronic entanglement.
Information on what type of rope (and its source) is still pending, as is the official cause of death. Per NOAA Fisheries, Massachusetts law enforcement officials removed “some of the rope” and provided it to NOAA’s law enforcement arm for inspection.
Entanglement is one of the two leading causes of injury and death for right whales. Sources of entanglement include fishing gear (commercial or recreational) and other marine debris. The source can be domestic or from Canada.
The other leading cause is vessel strikes, an issue that may be worsened by climate change, with warming waters potentially pushing the whales closer to busy shipping lanes.
“We have to agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green, and let’s question what shade of blue and what shade of green. But if the sky is red and the grass is purple, where do we go?”
Eve Zuckoff, reporter with WCAI who for years has covered right whales
Whales expend energy to swim, migrate, feed, keep the body warm, breathe, grow and reproduce. Being entangled takes away some of that finite energy, contributing to a poor body condition and slower growth. It can also preclude females from reproducing.
Per NOAA, #5120 was last sighted by aerial observers in June 2023; they reported her overall condition had declined, and that the wounds near her tail appeared more severe.
Whale #5120’s official cause of death remains pending. Scientists are running tests that can take weeks to complete. A necropsy (just like a human autopsy) can take weeks or more to yield final results, which may be inconclusive. Generally, marine scientists take tissue samples and measurements to send to specialists in labs. They scrutinize the whale’s muscle and blubber for bruising or abnormalities. They look for bone breaks or infection.
Meanwhile, in the absence of a conclusion, opponents to wind development (several from out of state), including members of the fishing industry, have filled social media feeds with their assertions that the cause of death was offshore wind.
Some have exaggerated or misinterpreted scientists’ concerns about the right whale’s food supply. Others have claimed, with no proof or evidence, that the sound from offshore wind construction activity hurt #5120.
One form of misinformation is cherry picking, a type of confirmation bias in which a person selectively focuses on data that appear to confirm his or her position while ignoring data that contradicts that position.
The recent right whale death offers an example of this: ignoring or denying the rope.
Wind opponents have shared unfounded claims that there was no entanglement with the young right whale, or that the rope was planted.
Dr. Michael Moore, a veterinarian and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Marine Mammal Center, arrived at the Edgartown beach in the early morning on Jan. 29 to see the whale. The previous day, law enforcement had collected some of the rope, say Moore and NOAA. Rope that was deeply embedded remained.
“It was heavily embedded in rope on what we’d call the dorsal aspect,” Moore said, adding it was near the “peduncle,” or the part where the tail connects to the body, “and that’s something we typically see in some right whale entanglement.”
Eve Zuckoff, a reporter with WCAI who for years has covered right whales, also shared what she witnessed Jan. 29: rope on the whale’s tail that cut about 4 to 5 inches deep.
As a journalist, she said, she values people’s instincts to question authority and be curious. She said she will ask scientists conducting the necropsy if they see any indication of a possible impact from offshore wind on right whales.
However, she says, the claim that a rope didn’t entangle whale #5120 is a denial of fact captured by photos and corroborated by several organizations: “I know what I saw.”
“This isn’t healthy skepticism, what’s happening online,” Zuckoff said. “We have to agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green, and let’s question what shade of blue and what shade of green. But if the sky is red and the grass is purple, where do we go?”
The Light contacted two organizations who shared false and unfounded claims on social media about #5120: Save the Dolphins and Whales New Jersey, and the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), whose CEO and founder, longtime fisherman Jerry Leeman, spoke at the Hyannis summit about potential losses to commercial fisheries in the Northeast.
Save the Dolphins and Whales New Jersey, in a Facebook post dated Jan. 31, claimed that #5120 did not have rope around her tail, and that rope was “only added afterwards.”
The group did not respond to several email requests and queries through Facebook for comment. As of Feb. 12, its Facebook post with several false statements remains online, shared more than 200 times.
NEFSA reshared the New Jersey group’s post and other posts that make unfounded claims about the rope. NEFSA’s Leeman, in a phone call with The Light, said he would not say anything “conclusively” about the rope.
“I was in Maine and the whale was in Massachusetts,” Leeman said. “I can’t speak specifically on something I wasn’t there for.”
Conspiracy theories have cropped up online, questioning why some rope was removed from the whale before the examination began. But it’s a standard approach.
“There is plenty of precedent for rope disappearing from carcasses during the transportation to a necropsy site,” Moore said. “We had one case that was clearly entangled … and there was rope on it when it was at sea, but by the time we came ashore, the rope was not there.”
Moore added, “the sooner you can collect the evidence … the better,” he said. “You collect whatever evidence you can when you can. You don’t leave evidence lying around on the beach.”
Whales’ hearing and pile driving
Whales primarily communicate, navigate, and appraise their environment through sound. Some offshore wind critics claim the sound from survey vessels operating for wind projects is loud enough to damage right whale hearing, which could have impacts on a whale’s behavior.
The noise from construction activities, such as pile driving for wind turbine foundations, can be loud.
Erica Staaterman, deputy director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Center for Marine Acoustics, who has a doctorate in bioacoustics, explained that the sound that survey vessels create for site characterization surveys, which identify the seafloor conditions and any hazards, is a narrow and directional beam that doesn’t spread far.
Pile driving, in contrast, makes a sound that’s louder and radiates in every direction around the pile, Staaterman said, so it presents more risk to marine species than the survey work. Because of that, there are restrictions on when developers are allowed to undertake this phase of construction.
In its Jan. 31 Facebook post about the right whale death on the Vineyard, Save the Dolphins and Whales New Jersey falsely stated: “Only a few miles away, pile driving is going on for the Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Project.”
In reality, Vineyard Wind has not conducted pile driving since Dec. 28, 2023, per its agreement with NOAA Fisheries, said Craig Gilvarg, spokesperson for Avangrid Renewables. This pause in pile driving will continue at least through April, while right whales are in or near the lease area.
Scientific understanding of hearing damage in right whales has shortcomings. It’s made harder by the fact that the ear decomposes after a whale’s death. Further, investigators are sometimes unable to study or determine a cause of death or inspect a whale’s ears because the body is too decomposed or unreachable.
Staaterman said it is difficult to ascertain hearing damage, because it would require dissection of the ear. She said that like humans’ ears, whales’ ears sustain damage with age, and that it would be impossible to know whether hearing damage was sustained from acute exposure to pile driving for wind turbine foundations, nearness to a lightning strike, or aging.
“It’s a really tricky thing to try to diagnose,” she said.
Staaterman noted an ongoing environmental assessment for multiple projects off the New York and New Jersey coasts seeks to establish more restrictive limits on construction noise to address cumulative impacts.
BOEM is planning to enact limits on pile driving noise in order to protect the hearing of baleen whales. BOEM would enforce it by requiring developers to record the noise level for every pile installed.
Wind farms and right whales’ food source
Some scientists have expressed concerns about how offshore wind might affect right whales’ food source, zooplankton. Critics of offshore wind have spread misinformation that exaggerates and mischaracterizes those concerns.
Arunima Krishna, a communications and advertising professor at Boston University who researches disinformation, described a “continuum of falsity” with misinformation.
Misinformation is a broad category that includes disinformation. The difference between the two centers on intent. Misinformation is false or inaccurate, but those who share it may not realize it is incorrect. Disinformation is false information shared with intentions to deceive or mislead, often to induce fear or anger.
Sometimes, aspects of misinformation may be factually correct, but stripped (sometimes intentionally) of necessary context and thus deceptive.
The Light first reported in 2022 that federal scientist Sean Hayes recommended that offshore wind development south of Massachusetts be shifted some 12 miles to avoid a right whale feeding ground around the Nantucket Shoals. Hayes’ memo questioned how offshore wind might negatively affect right whales’ food source, zooplankton.
Gib Brogan, campaign director with Oceana, an ocean conservation nonprofit, said the organization supports the proposal for a buffer between wind development and this area, noting those waters in Southeastern Massachusetts are critically important year-round to right whales.
“We are concerned about the effects of the presence of the turbines on the whale habitat and the oceanographic conditions,” Brogan said.
The government convened a panel of scientists to review potential effects of wind turbines on the whales’ food. The panel has since concluded that more research is needed: turbines could cause an increase in the whales’ food source, a decrease, or have no appreciable impact.
Amid that uncertainty, those opposed to wind development have drawn their own certainties, creating misinformation.
In a mischaracterization of Hayes’ concerns, a tweet inaccurately stated his memo “linked offshore wind turbines & dead whales”; the tweet included a photo of a humpback whale washed up on a New York beach.
Hayes’ memo did not link wind turbines to dead humpback whales (or New York). Its focus was on potential future impacts of turbines on a particular species — right whales — and their food source in waters south of Massachusetts: the Nantucket Shoals.
Federal agencies recently issued a final strategy for mitigating impacts of offshore wind development on right whales — a “living document” that will be regularly updated.
Some in fishing industry spread misinformation about wind
At the Hyannis conference in January, representatives of some fishermen’s groups shared inaccurate information about wind development and commercial fishing.
On New Bedford’s waterfront, some fishermen have made their feelings clear about offshore wind, flying flags with a red circle and slash cutting through a turbine.
To be sure, commercial fishermen have genuine concerns about potential impacts of offshore wind development. Wind farms may preclude survey vessels from conducting accurate or sufficient federal fishery surveys, which ultimately determine how much the industry is allowed to catch in a given year. Fishermen also worry that wind farms may cause gear loss and damage, loss of fishing grounds, and negative impacts to fish habitats.
Developers and states have established compensation funds for anticipated gear loss or damage or loss of access during the 30 years of future wind farm operations. States are also working to develop a regional compensation fund, in absence of a federal one (which exists for the oil and gas industry).
Most recently, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) released a discussion draft for a bill that would establish a compensation fund for fishermen at the federal level. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) tried something similar last year.
However, some fishermen, amid these concerns, have been sharing inaccurate or false information to argue for a moratorium on wind farm development.
Jerry Leeman — the CEO of NEFSA, which reshared the false post about the Edgartown whale — also spoke at the Hyannis conference. In remarks to the audience, Leeman claimed that if “all energy resources were to be built, we would lose 68% commercial fisheries displacement” — in other words, two-thirds of the fishing industry.
Using that figure, he went on to assert that could mean a $680 million loss for Maine’s lobster industry.
He cited a 2023 report from NOAA and BOEM for the 68% figure.
However, the 68% figure from the report is actually a reference to a 2016 survey of United Kingdom fishermen. The fishermen were asked, “What is the main negative impact of the [offshore wind farm] on the fishing industry?” — 68% of respondents said “displacement.”
Asked for clarification on his incorrect statement at the conference, Leeman, who was traveling, would not comment on it, stating he didn’t have his report notes with him.
Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, has for years been a prominent voice of criticism and opposition to offshore wind. She also presented at the Hyannis conference, stating that wind turbine blades will need to be re-fiberglassed yearly due to pitting damage from rain. She didn’t specify any projects in her presentation.
The claim about turbine blades needing to be re-fiberglassed yearly is false, said a company spokesperson for wind developer Siemens Gamesa in an email to The Light. Siemens Gamesa manufactures the turbine components for the South Fork Wind project, which is now partially up and running, connected to Long Island, New York.
Brady was named in a recent report from Brown University, titled “Against the Wind,” which says that several East Coast groups and individuals that oppose wind development are linked — either through membership, staffing, funding, or other relationships — to conservative and libertarian think tanks or fossil fuel interests.
Several of the organizations and individuals named in the report presented at the Hyannis summit, including Meaghan Lapp, ACK 4 Whales (formerly ACK Residents Against Turbines), and Green Oceans.
The Brown researchers say some anti-wind-power groups spread misinformation, particularly about the causes of right whale deaths, while others share connections with think tanks that have published falsehoods about climate science and offshore wind.
“The big pattern is that local groups, who are often, I think, well-meaning and sincere in their concerns about the impacts of offshore wind …, are receiving information from very biased sources,” said Timmons Roberts, a Brown University environmental studies professor whose climate lab published the report.
We asked, you answered
What do you think of offshore wind power?
Addressing misinformation
Both developers and federal agencies are grappling with countering misinformation.
But opponents of wind development may wholly distrust developers and the government as sources of information.
“I’m not gonna sugarcoat this — this one is hard,” said Ken Kimmell, chief development officer at Avangrid Renewables, a partner in Vineyard Wind, during a panel discussion on offshore wind in December. “You can’t go in and pretend that there’s no impact … You have to acknowledge it.” Kimmell also said developers need to create benefits that mitigate the industry’s impacts.
For example, Vineyard Wind has created separate compensation funds for Massachusetts and Rhode Island fishermen who may suffer economic loss due to the wind farm. The project also has a multi-million dollar agreement with funds that will go to Barnstable, where electric cables land, to offset impacts and disruptions such as noise and roadwork for onshore construction.
Vineyard Wind, one of the United States’ first commercial wind farms, delivered its first power in January. Its developer estimates that the project will reduce carbon emissions by more than 1.6 million metric tons per year, or the equivalent of taking 325,000 cars off the road.
Offshore wind is critical to Massachusetts’ plan to generate clean energy to fight climate change. “The Commonwealth anticipates offshore wind will be the primary source of electricity for its decarbonized energy system,” Massachusetts’s 2022 clean energy and climate plan states.
“You really have to counter the misinformation that is spreading like wildfire,” Kimmell continued. “That is worrisome because we really can’t be there 24/7 to counter everything … and people in the town don’t necessarily believe our experts.”
The federal government is staffed with not only regulators, but also in-house experts in key research areas. But wind critics may distrust them, too.
Subscribe to our Weekender newsletter ⇢
Busy week? Catch up on the most important stories you might have missed with our Weekender newsletter.
Fishermen already have a fraught relationship with NOAA Fisheries, their regulator, and that tension has extended to BOEM, the lead agency reviewing and greenlighting the wind projects that some fishermen view as a threat to their livelihoods.
Brogan, with Oceana, the environmental group, said government agencies and developers can improve their transparency to address concerns about offshore wind.
“Oceana has been calling for the federal government to boost its transparency of oversight responsibilities so it doesn’t have to be a mystery of what’s happening out there,” Brogan said. “Those are very important for both the industry and for the whales, and it shouldn’t be an opaque process.”
The Light sent a series of questions to NOAA Fisheries and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) about the ongoing investigation into the Edgartown right whale’s death, including whether there are any signs that offshore wind could have affected the whale, and how investigators could test for any potential effects.
A NOAA Fisheries spokesperson declined an interview, saying it is the agency’s “longstanding practice to not comment on enforcement techniques or investigations.”
NOAA Fisheries has stated there is no evidence at this time that noise from offshore wind site surveys could cause mortality of whales, and that there are “no known links” between recent whale mortalities and ongoing offshore wind survey work.
An IFAW spokesperson did not respond to questions by email.
“These projects need to be respecting all of the promises that the developers made for doing this responsibly,” Brogan said. “I think that that may do a lot of good on injecting facts into these scenarios — like when we have the tragic death of that whale that was very quickly connected to offshore wind, even though there are no facts that could back it up.”
Brogan took to X (formerly Twitter) after the right whale was found, asking if any shutdowns have been triggered or if construction has continued for the Vineyard Wind project, which sits about 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.
Offshore wind development does increase risks to the right whale, particularly with regards to vessel strikes.
Brogan shared screenshots of marine trackers, which showed both right whales and vessels associated with the wind project, respectively, in or near the lease area.
Gilvarg of Avangrid said turbine installation and other above-water construction work have continued at Vineyard Wind in recent weeks during the pile-driving moratorium. Like other vessels, boats working on the wind project are subject to speed restrictions or are required to carry protected-species observers on board and other monitors that can detect by sight or sound the presence of an endangered whale.
“As these projects get more real and less hypothetical, the volume that we’ve been hearing in terms of disinformation has been increasing,” said Rebecca Ullman, director of external affairs for SouthCoast Wind, which intends to develop a different lease area south of Martha’s Vineyard. “And I say volume to distinguish it from breadth and depth.”
She continued, “I think it’s natural to have questions and it’s our job to answer them as best as we can.”
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Editor’s notes: This story was amended on Feb. 17, 2024, to note that not all attendees at a conference on Cape Cod were opposed to offshore wind.
The New Bedford Light’s newsroom is scrupulously independent. Only the editors decide what to cover and what to publish. Founders, funders and board members have no influence over editorial content.
How much money has WHOI taken from the wind industries? Why is this fact not mentioned?
Does anyone really feel like those millions given to those defending these foriegn corporations comes with no expectations or strings attached? Anyone for transparency should want to see the numbers from the block island wind farm which at 6 years old is failing and requiring constant maintenance.
WHOI gets most of it’s money from the Navy followed by the petroleum industry.
“foriegn corporations” because of experience and price.
Have you looked into Block Island? What is the output percentage versus specification? How much have maintenance costs exceed projected?
Hard numbers, no accusatory piffle.
Anastasia Lennon, informative, well-written and researched piece about offshore wind project. Thank you.
Whale Deaths Point To Ocean Wind Turbines
Since the construction of the Block Island Wind turbines in 2016 whale deaths have followed the wind construction in NJ and NY –
The ocean’s wind is deafening the whales. They get hit by ships and can no longer hunt or navigate.
NOAA Fisheries: “Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida”
Whale Low-Frequency Deaths Known For 20 Years – Human Infra Sound Sickness 1987.
The U.S. Navy and the National Marine Fisheries many years ago released a report acknowledging the role that the Navy’s sonar played in the deaths of 17 marine mammals in the Bahamas in 2000. The report was the agency’s first official admission that sonar may contribute to whale beachings.
A study concluded the low-frequency sound from the Navy’s sonar to damaged the whale’s ears, leading them to beach themselves.
Since January 2016 over 140 Whales have washed ashore from North Carolina to Maine. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) funds research to deploy offshore wind turbines. The year 2016 was the first year the United States deployed ocean wind turbines which coincided with the whale beachings.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has declared an “Unusual Mortality Event,” prompting a federal probe.
In 2008 an unusual mass whale stranding, one of the few on record involving beaked whales, drew attacks on the Navy from environmental groups and attracted interest from biologists, including Peter Tyack at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Falmouth, Massachusetts. “Tyack knew it wasn’t the first standing of its kind. Five similar strandings of beaked whales had coincided with naval exercises near Greece and the Canary Islands.”
Falmouth, Massachusetts is ground zero for poorly placed land-based wind turbines in the United States taking health and property rights.
In 2015 facing several lawsuits, the US Navy has finally agreed to limit its use of sonar devices that harm dolphins and whales, especially in areas off the coast of Hawaii and Southern California.
The range of frequencies that whales use are from 30 Hertz (Hz) to about 8,000 Hz, (8 kHZ). Humans can only hear part of the whales’ songs. We aren’t able to hear the lowest of the whale frequencies.
Humans hear low-frequency sounds starting at about 100 Hz.
Between January and February this year of 2016, 29 sperm whales got stranded and died on English, German and Dutch beaches.
Environmentalists and the news media offered multiple explanations – except the most obvious and likely one: offshore wind farms
At the end of May 2017 according to marine wildlife experts, the whales were likely disoriented by nearby wind turbines, which can affect the sonar whales use to navigate.
Scientist Neil Kelley and his team in the mid-1980s thoroughly documented significant adverse health effects resulting from inaudible, very-low-frequency sound produced by a large wind turbine in Boone, N.C. This scientifically rigorous NASA and Department of Energy-sponsored study, in cooperation with MIT and four other prestigious universities looked into human complaints from nearby residents about sleep problems along with whooshing and thumping sounds it made.The wind turbine also had complaints of disrupted television line of sight reception.
You have done some excellent research.
Please put the same amount of effort into the harm of sucking brown goo out of the ground and lighting it on fire.
You discuss misinformation.
Are you ignoring the misinformation on climate change. CO2 is a part of the photosynthesis equation. Life on this planet requires CO2.
Second- fossil fuels today thru the use of catalytic converters burn clean.
Your misinformation is at the heart of your call for alternative energy.
Oil & gas are abundant- in fact has been found to be in constant renewing formation. Oil does not come from the misinformation of dead dinosaurs. Oil is a by product of the cooling of Earths molten core.
Stop accusing others of using misinformation- when you are most guilty
Sad to see New Bedford Light which of course leans left to jump on the “disinformation” wind cheer leading wagon with a headlong 2 footed leap. There are plenty of problems that an objective observer can find with little effort about offshore wind and what it is doing and will likely do. I predict within 5-10 years or so (just like with most leftist projects like the vax etc), the truth will come out and the real effects will be seen by all, but covered up by the powers that be. Wind projects wont= materially effect climate change and or global warming which is largely a fraud and money grift, WILL raise power costs to consumers, WILL likely change local weather and fishing industry in as yet unimagined ways and all will likely be negative, WILL need to be removed and or recycled somehow and those who have made their $$$$$$$$$$$ on the projects will not be left holding the bag, consumers will.
“Sad to see New Bedford Light which of course leans left to jump on the “disinformation”. Please cite the disinformation.
There is a lot of misinformation regarding recent whale deaths. The best way to avoid this is for NOAA, the agency charged with the protection of these animals, to investigate and report the findings of the deaths as they occur.
The New Bedford Light published an article in June 2023 regarding the possibility of marine mammal deaths associated with the Vineyard Wind Project. All parties involved knew there would be losses during this project, per the article, “Vineyard Wind is authorized by NOAA to “take” as many as 66 humpback whales during its first year of construction. It is further authorized to “take” 100 minke whales, 38 fin whales, 20 critically endangered right whales and thousands of seals and dolphins”.
It is a well known fact that strong SONAR and the noise from underwater construction noise can cause harm to marine mammals’ hearing and navigation.
This past Summer commercial fishermen as stewards of the ocean, are required to, and did report dead whales floating near the Vineyard wind site to NOAA; they failed to respond. Two dead humpbacks were found on the South side of Martha’s Vineyard. These were expeditiously towed offshore without necropsies done to determine HOW they died.
This is the reason so many people are suspicious of Government agencies and their lack of response regarding possible affects of offshore wind development on the marine environment. They need to step up and do their job, to avert all the misinformation that is being disseminated in the press and social media.
Should the wind turbines be replaced with with oil production platforms?
Whales love them.
This ridiculously lengthy piece goes on and on about “misinformation” without acknowledging that facts are not misinformation when we don’t like them. The negative impacts to the commercial fishing industry, the families that survive as a result of it, as well as food stability from local sources have all been ignored. Not one critical question has been addressed here…such as…what is the net benefit of these projects after production, transportation, construction, operation and decommissioning? What will the total benefit be when we subtract the coal fired plants being used in China and India? I think the author could be taken more seriously if some critical thinking and questioning had been done by weighing or at the very least addressing the negatives that undoubtedly will occur. I challenge you to research the negatives with an objectivity and then do a comparative analysis addressing our concerns. Then tell the world who is spreading misinformation.
You also forgot to disclose the amount of money being handed out to “conservation” groups by these companies that are clamoring for tax credits from us. And people wonder why the truth gets hidden behind paid cheerleaders for the destruction of our oceans. Virtue signaling at the peril of the oceanic environment and the commercial fisherman that supply our citizens with fresh and safe seafood should be stopped in its tracks right now. Hard stop.
It won’t be stopped.
Look at the long term trend.
Please point out the misinformation.
Not one critical question has been addressed here…such as…what is the net benefit of these projects after production, transportation, construction, operation and decommissioning of “coal (Somerset) and nuclear (Plymouth)”
Three questions: Would the Light be open to investigating the web of misinformation, including disinformation and withholding of information, perpetrated by Avangrid as it attempts to force massive and damaging electrical infrastructure on communities that oppose it? Can the Light please look into exactly who funded the absurdly biased report out of Brown University that basically paints the legitimate concerns of U.S. citizens as lies and fantasy? Could the Light investigate the musical chairs career game between public employees in the regulatory agencies and the ranks of Big Wind executives? Thanks.
Can Susanne supply any information about what Avangrid has done?
How did Susanne determine that there will be damaging electrical infrastructure?
Did a little bird tell her?
Does Susanne not trust Brown University, any university?
Do you have list of employees who have moved between regulatory agencies and the ranks of Big Wind executives? Thanks!!!!
https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/whales-stop-singing-and-rock-lobsters-lose-their-balance-how-seismic-surveys-can-harm-marine-life
Have you ever heard the sweet sounds of offshore drilling and fracking?
Wow! Looks like FOX, Spectrum and Townsquare Media alumna discovered NBLight!
The thing that I find most upsetting is all the $120,000 a year jobs.
I used to think this paper was able to present both sides of stories related to OSW. I guess that is not the case. Now I see Vineyard Wind and SouthCoast listed as partners so that makes sense now.
It makes sense that this paper supports an industry that brings $120,000 a year jobs to New Bedford.
The partnership makes sense.
I’m the founder of Save the Dolphins and Whales, NJ which this story references several times about ‘misinformation’ campaign on a single facebook post we made.
We stand 100% behind every single word on that post. Several people who were early on the scene made instagram posts saying that rope was added afterwards and had photos. We linked the Instagram posts right in our facebook comments section (the article says we did not support it). It wound up being enough that that the NOAA did a further investigation on the rope because of the accusations. Our group never agreed or disagreed, but just stated in the post that people on scene disagreed with the official story and made claims that it was potentially a coverup.
We were also attacked that we misinformed/lied about the Pile Driving, however it occurred only 28 days earlier before the whales death. Pile Driving doesn’t necessarily kill whales immediately, however it damages their senses which can take weeks to harm the animal.
The next ridiculous claim made is we exaggerated about the distance of the Pile Driving from its death. We didn’t have an exact map for our post, so we stated “a few miles” when it was in fact “15 miles”, per at least this article.
We were not aware of this article until it was brought to our attention today (2/29). We did miss the journalist reaching out to us, however if she would have just looked where she left us the message we supported our story in the comments.
It was very apparent to us that this article did have an agenda.