The 1970s represent a formative decade for me, growing from childhood through my teens. I have so many memories, some good, some much less so, as I started to take an increasing interest in the world around me. Miners’ strikes, the referendum on continuing EEC membership, the glorious summer of 1976, the Vietnam war, the Winter of Discontent, punk rock and much more. One of my most vivid memories, however, is of the brave campaign fought by Greenpeace to save the whale, to bring an end to commercial whale hunting. Time and again the Davids of Greenpeace pitted themselves against the Goliaths of commercial whalers. Greenpeace has just cause to be proud of its work in helping to bring about a ban on commercial whaling, and its website tells the story here.

Fast-forward half a century, however, and we find a rather different story. So far as Greenpeace is concerned, whales are under threat from three main challenges – plastic in the oceans, deep sea mining, and climate change. In addition, Greenpeace says that “[p]ollution, noise, fishing, shipping and habitat loss also put them under pressure.” All of which is probably true (though given that whales have the entire oceans to roam, representing two thirds of the globe’s surface, I reserve judgement on the threat from climate change).

In the last few years I have noticed what certainly looks like a significant upward trend in an old phenomenon – whale strandings. The other thing I have noticed is that these often seem to occur in locations where offshore wind farms have been constructed or where survey work is taking place to ascertain whether the locations are suitable for wind farms. Of course, correlation is not causation (not necessarily, anyway) but the remarkable coincidence between increased whale strandings and wind farm developments is such that one might have thought that environmentalists generally, and Greenpeace specifically (in view of its proud track record in helping to protect whales) would be looking at this development with a jaundiced view and questioning whether or not there might be a connection.

One might have thought that, but one would be wrong. Instead, the reverse is the case. Not only is Greenpeace not wondering whether there might be a worrying nexus, rather they are going out of their way to give wind farm developers a free pass, and to insist that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever. Worse still (if it’s possible for anything to be worse), they also seek to label those who raise the possibiity of a connection as the purveyors of lies and disinformation.

The wheel has turned 180 degrees. Back in the 1970s commercial whalers were killing whales. That fact was undeniable, and so the brave warriors of Greenpeace put themselves between the whales and those who would kill them. Half a century later, whales are once again dying in alarmingly large numbers. The cause is uncertain. Rather than contemplate all possible causes, Greenpeace instead throws itself behind its new certainty – the religion of climate change, which trumps all else, including whales apparently. Wind farms (according to what passes for the logic) are vital to prevent climate change. Thus wind farms are good, and those who oppose them are bad. Also, if wind farms are good, they cannot possibly do harm, therefore they must be defended, whatever the cost.

In the last six months or so, Greenpeace has posted a couple of pieces on its website that deal with this issue. On 15th February 2023 it produced this under the heading “New report: Whales in danger as clock ticks towards deep sea mining”. Fair enough, so far as it goes, but its sub-heading reveals where Greenpeace is on the issue: “In the wake of baseless claims that offshore wind is a threat to whales, a new peer-reviewed report published today by the University of Exeter and Greenpeace Research Laboratories finds that the deep sea mining industry presents a very real threat to whale populations worldwide.” A couple of critical paragraphs say this:

The study, which focuses on the overlap between cetaceans (such as whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and target sites for deep sea mining, especially in the Pacific Ocean, says deep sea mining could cause “significant risk to ocean ecosystems” with “long-lasting and irreversible” impacts, including risks to globally endangered species like blue whales. It further states that research is needed to assess threats to these mammals, particularly noise pollution from proposed mining operations.

Arlo Hemphill, Greenpeace USA’s Project Lead on Deep Sea Mining, said: “There has been a lot of talk about wind turbines and whale deaths, but there is no evidence whatsoever connecting the two. Meanwhile, the oceans face more threats now than at any time in history. This report makes it clear that if the deep sea mining industry follows through on its plans, the habitats whales rely on will be in even greater danger. Instead of opening up a new industrial frontier in the largest ecosystem on earth, we should be establishing ocean sanctuaries to protect biodiversity.”

I share Arlo Hemphill’s concerns about the danger posed to maritime biodiversity by deep sea mining. However, unlike Mr Hemphill, I note that much of the pressure for such deep sea mining is the commercial desire to extract rare minerals that are needed for renewable energy projects such as the offshore wind farms that he is so keen to defend. The BBC acknowledged as much more than six years ago, Earlier this year, The Conversation, that hotbed of climate change alarmism, published an article with the heading “Deep seabed mining plans pit renewable energy demand against ocean life in a largely unexplored frontier”. It isn’t as though the nexus between deep sea mining and wind farms isn’t known about.

In any event, that single piece about deep sea mining, which included a side-swipe at those claiming cetaceans are facing problems caused by offshore wind farms, obviously didn’t deal with that issue sufficiently robustly. Just eight days later another piece appeared on the Greenpeace website, with the heading “How to Stop Whale Deaths from Real Threats, Not Lies About Wind Energy”. It doesn’t pull any punches:

Protecting whales means busting fossil-fueled myths about wind energy — Right-wing disinformation is the real threat!…

…Recently a new insidious threat to whales — and all biodiversity — has our attention: Disinformation.

In response to a tragic spate of whale deaths along the East Coast [of the USA], anti-science media such as FOX News, long beholden to fossil fuel corporations, has amplified the baseless claims made — with no supporting evidence — by a small group of local mayors that offshore wind farming is somehow to blame.

As noted by the marine mammal experts with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is zero evidence of a connection between the whale deaths and wind farming. Nevertheless, fear-mongering calls for a moratorium on wind power projects in the region benefit Big Oil’s fight against a just transition to renewable energy, while only pretending to care about local whale populations.

The perils of spreading misleading, false information may seem less immediate than a whaler’s harpoon. But climate disinformation moves us further away from the real solutions to the climate crisis that all living creatures so desperately need.

To debunk the dangerous disinformation distracting from the true dangers facing whale populations in this region of the Atlantic Ocean, we’ve consulted two-longtime oceans experts: Greenpeace USA’s Oceans Campaigns Director John Hocevar and Greenpeace USA’s Senior Oceans Campaigner Arlo Hemphill.

Let’s set the record straight…

It reads like a Guardian hit-piece, with all the usual lazy smears and tropes – right wing: tick. Fossil fuel corporations: tick. Fox News: tick. Big Oil: tick. Climate crisis: tick.

Speaking of the Guardian, it followed up last month with the defence of offshore wind farms and the smearing of those who suggest there is a connection between wind farm developments and whale deaths, with an article with the following heading and sub-heading: “Energy industry uses whale activists to aid anti-wind farm strategy, experts say – Unwitting whale advocates and rightwing thinktanks create the impression that offshore wind energy projects endanger cetaceans”. It’s all there too. It talks of:

…a trap laid out by rightwing interests that are sowing doubt to fuel public discontent over renewable energy projects.

Also in attendance that night was Lisa Linowes, a member of the SRWC who has also served as a senior research fellow for the notorious Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a rightwing thinktank known for its crusade against the energy transition.

This roster of attendees shows how industry interests opposed to climate action are capitalizing on locals’ concerns over the right whale in an attempt to block renewable energy projects. The rhetoric used by anti-wind crusaders like Chalke, Knight and Linowes posits nature against industry – but their reasoning is often flawed.

The SRWC’s strategy – exploiting gaps in scientific research or consensus to spread doubt – mirrors one long used by oil interests to delay the transition to renewable energy. Science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway outlined how climate deniers and skeptics used this playbook in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt.

Today, organizations like the SRWC are calling into question the effectiveness of wind energy in an attempt to delay or suspend construction of wind projects. Knight, whose group Green Oceans is also a member of the SRWC, recently self-published a white paper on wind energy that Roberts called “full of cherrypicked data”.

I’m not so sure about the data being cherry-picked. I would suggest it’s right there in front of us. It’s not as though the Guardian hasn’t been reporting on the unusual number of recent whale strandings, after all. A quick internet search using the terms “Guardian whale beachings” brings up the following headlines (with dates, simply in the order in which my search engine turned them up):

“Race to save almost 50 pilot whales after same number die in mass stranding on WA beach”: 26th July 2023.

Linked article: “‘We have never seen this’: scientists baffled by behaviour of pilot whales before WA mass stranding – Environment minister says way pod crowded tightly together 150 metres offshore before becoming beached is ‘unique and pretty incredible’”: 26th July 2023.

“Agony on a Cornish beach: what do whale strandings tell us about our oceans? The number of whales, porpoises and dolphins being washed up on the UK’s shores is on the rise, and human activity is largely to blame, say experts”: 25th February 2023.

“Left stranded: US military sonar linked to whale beachings in Pacific, say scientists – Islands surrounded by US military study area, including Guam and Saipan, call for activity that harms the whales to stop”: 15th January 2021.

“Stranding of three whales in Corfu raises alarm over seismic testing for fossil fuels”: 9th March 2022.

“Beached whale increase may be due to military sonar exercises, say experts – It is thought sonar may scare animals into surfacing too quickly, causing decompression sickness”: 24th August 2020.

“More than 50 pilot whales dead in mass stranding on Isle of Lewis in Scotland”: 16th July 2023.

That represents a very short, but possibly representative, list. The cases of such strandings are legion, and they do seem to be increasingly and distressingly commonplace. I find it very interesting indeed that experts can seek to put forward all sorts of possible explanations for the strandings, including that whales may be adversely affected by military sonar or (perhaps inevitably) by “seismic testing for fossil fuels”. I certainly don’t rule the latter out, but I do wonder why the same experts apparently rule out similar noise disturbance from existing wind farms and from the research work carried out onsite in connection with possible new ones.

Both Greenpeace and the Guardian cite NOAA in defence of their claim that experts reckon wind farms and whale strandings aren’t connected. The Guardian link takes us to this. It’s from 18th January 2023, and I wonder whether the apparent increase in whale strandings in the intervening seven months might make the experts at NOAA change their minds? I also note that they don’t categorically say that wind farms can’t affect and disorientate whales. The language is carefully chosen. They say things like this:

Since January 2016, NOAA Fisheries has been monitoring an Unusual Mortality Event for humpback whales with elevated strandings along the entire East Coast. There are currently 178 humpback whales included in the unusual mortality event. Partial or full necropsy examinations were conducted on approximately half of the whales. Of the whales examined, about 40% had evidence of human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement. And to date, no whale mortality has been attributed to offshore wind activities.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I don’t think that an examination of “approximately half the whales” (how approximate, I wonder? More than half or less than half?) which found that “about 40%” had evidence of human interaction such as ship strike or entanglement conclusively rules out the possible involvement of wind farm activities. If “approximately half” and “about 40%” means “ a bit less than” in each case (and I suspect it does) we are certainly talking about conclusive evidence for only one in five, and possibly even as little as one in six or seven of the affected whales. Also, failure to attribute whale mortality to offshore wind activities is not the same as offshore wind activities having no connection to whale mortality.

As regards the reliability of NOAA (which itself pushes climate change alarmism on a regular basis) I personally mistrust anything it says, since I found its monthly climate reports repeating the (highly inaccurate) claim that last year’s floods in Pakistan saw “about one third” of that country under water – it wasn’t.

One of the most shocking recent whale strandings was that referred to in the Guardian article of 16th July 2023 above. The Guardian said, inter alia:

The cause of the stranding is unknown but it is thought the pod may have followed one of the females….

…Human influence on the marine environment – including naval activities, oil and gas exploration, pollution and the climate crisis – has been blamed for an increase in the number of strandings in recent years. However, they can also result from natural causes such as illness, disease or injury. …

…Pilot whales are part of the dolphin family and are the cetacean species most susceptible to mass strandings.

It’s all there – “ naval activities, oil and gas exploration, pollution and the climate crisis”. What the Guardian article didn’t mention, however, is that at the time of the stranding, surveying work was being undertaken in connection with a proposed wind farm just three miles off the shore of the Isle of Lewis & Harris, and which is very controversial indeed.

Of course it’s possible that there is no connection, but if noise and activity from oil and gas exploration, from deep sea mining and from military sonar can all potentially explain whale strandings, what is so magical about offshore wind farms that they can’t possibly have the same effect on whales (and dolphins and porpoises)?

Greenpeace activists were my heroes when I was growing up. Not any more.

77 Comments

  2. It’s quite obvious that undersea noise harms cetaceans. Installing wind farms creates such noise, and must harm cetaceans. The question is, to what extent? It only affects nearby animals: but how close is nearby? Harm can be as limited as temporary displacement from usual habitat right up to permanent hearing damage.

    I will delve back into the literature on this at some point. From memory the problem with attributing noise as a contributor to death in post mortems is that the fine structure of the auditory canal is lost within a few hours of death, leading to inconclusive results.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jit,

    I freely admit to knowing none of the answers here. What struck me as barking mad, driven by nothing more than dogma, was the assertion that all sorts of submarine noise and disruptive industrial behaviour could be responsible for whale strandings, but not noise and disruptive behaviour associated with wind farms. Especially given that there seems to be increasing correlation geographically between wind farm activities and whale strandings.

    I also can’t help wondering if the repetitive swish swish of wind turbine blades might not transmit down the turbine shaft to below the sea surface, and have a disorienting effect on cetaceans.

    Like

  4. This ‘no evidence that wind farm activities harm whales claim’ is complete and utter bullshit. NOAA KNOWS that acoustic underwater activity can not only ‘harass’ marine life (cause disturbance and injury) but also ‘take’ (i.e. kill) marine mammals, including whales. They bloody well admit it, in writing:

    “The NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources authorizes the incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA to U.S. citizens and U.S.-based entities, if we find that the taking would:

    Be of small numbers;
    Have no more than a “negligible impact” on those marine mammal species or stocks; and
    Not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.
    Further, we must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat (i.e., mitigation), paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses; and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings.

    Most incidental take authorizations have been issued for activities that produce underwater sound.”

    https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act

    NOAA is currently processing ‘take’ applications from wind companies. This particular ‘take’ (ritual sacrifice) application includes 12 Humpback and Minke whales.

    “Park City Wind, LLC Construction of the New England Wind Offshore Wind Farm Project off of Massachusetts
    Status Public Comment Issued Date Effective Dates
    In Process Closed — —
    Summary: NOAA Fisheries has received a request from Park City Wind, LLC for Incidental Take Regulations and an associated Letter of Authorization. The requested regulations would govern the authorization of take, by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals over the course of 5 years (2025-2030) incidental to construction of the New England Wind Project. Park City Wind proposes to develop the New England Wind Project in two phases, known as Park City Wind (Phase 1) and Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2). Project activities that may result in incidental take include pile driving (impact and vibratory), drilling, unexploded ordnance or munitions and explosives of concern detonation, and vessel-based site assessment surveys using high-resolution geophysical equipment. If adopted, the proposed regulations would be effective March 27, 2025, through March 26, 2030.”

    https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable

    Somebody needs to shove these facts right up the jacksies of Greenpiss executives and Guardianista journalists.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. As I’m sure you’re already aware, the RSPB are just as much hypocrites:
    Dellingpole, J. (2013, April 7). RSPB makes a killing… from windfarm giants behind turbines accused of destroying rare birds. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305197/RSPB-makes-killing–windfarm-giants-turbines-accused-destroying-rare-birds.html
    Stop These Things. (2014, November 13). “Green” Hypocrisy: RSPB Fiddles as Scotland’s Wind Farms Found Guilty of Rampant Raptor Slaughter. https://stopthesethings.com/2014/11/13/green-hypocrisy-rspb-fiddles-as-scotlands-wind-farms-found-guilty-of-rampant-raptor-slaughter/”
    Campaign 4 Protection of Moorland Communities. (2021, January 5). The RSPB’s hypocrisy and absurdity on windfarms ‘knows no bounds’. https://www.c4pmc.co.uk/post/the-rspb-s-hypocrisy-and-absurdity-on-windfarms-knows-no-bounds

    As one example of what this means in practice:
    ‘Dozens of birdwatchers who travelled to a Scottish island to see an extremely rare swift have been left distraught after it was killed by a wind turbine. … Sightings of the bird have only been recorded eight times in the UK in nearly 170 years, most recently in 1991, prompting around 80 ornithologists to visit the island in the hope of catching a glimpse.’
    (Johnson, S. (2013, June 27). Birdwatchers see rare swift killed by wind turbine. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10146135/Birdwatchers-see-rare-swift-killed-by-wind-turbine.html)

    Between the RSPB killing the birds and Greenpeace killing the whales, it’s almost that old line from Vietnam: ‘We had to destroy the planet in order to save it.’ Or, to steal Reagan’s line, if ‘the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” ‘ the ten most terrifying are ‘I’m an environmentalist and I’m here to save the planet.’

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Scotched Earth,

    Regrettably, many organisations that are supposed to be concerned with protecting wildlife are signed up to the narrative that the so-called climate crisis is a greater danger to wildlife than anything else. The RSPB is one of them. No doubt that’s why Jit wrote this:

    The RSPB is Betraying its Members

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Whale deaths are happening now but ocean floor mining is just a proposal; and not in the areas where the deaths are occurring but surveying for wind farms is.

    Like

  9. Of course, it isn’t just whales, and “greens” in the USA seem to be the happiest of all for “renewable” energy to kill wildlife:

    “Green Activists Silent as California Moves to Help Wind Farm Slaughter of America’s Iconic Bald Eagle”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/25/green-activists-silent-as-california-moves-to-help-wind-farm-slaughter-of-americas-iconic-bald-eagle/

    America’s national bird, the bald eagle, along with golden eagles and other raptors, face mass slaughter in California’s wind farm avian graveyards following the State Democrat-controlled legislature’s decision to relax controls on wildlife protections. Signed into law last month, with little protest, Senate Bill 147 (SB 147) allows permits to kill previously fully protected species for renewable energy and infrastructure projects. The move comes as the Federal Biden Administration pushes ahead with ambitious plans to increase renewable energy harnessed from both onshore and offshore giant turbines.

    Local lawyer Cox Castle explained that before SB 147, no authorisation existed for the slaughter of 37 fully protected native species, except for scientific research. This meant, they continued, that the presence of protected birds on a renewable energy development could stop the project in its tracks. “SB 147 creates more certainty for renewable energy and certain other project developers because it establishes a permitting process for these species,” it notes. Cox Castle also observes that the protected species list has been “updated” with the removal of the American peregrine falcon and the brown pelican.

    Of course, the avian destruction has been going on for years, with giant turbine blades posing serious hazards to large birds such as eagles that rely on air currents for sustained flight. NextEra Energy is one of America’s largest utility companies, and last year it was fined $8 million after 150 eagles were killed at its wind farms across eight states. Almost all the deaths occurred when the eagles were hit by turbine blades. Because carcasses are not always found, officials told the court that the number killed was likely to have been higher….

    …As the Daily Sceptic has reported in the past, it is not just large birds of prey that are at risk from onshore wind farms. Recent scientific work suggested that millions of bats across the world are killed every year by turbine blades. A recent German field study identified 55 casualties per megawatt generated. Britain currently has 14,000 megawatts of onshore capacity, although actual generation is less. Political pressure to boost this onshore capacity is growing and it would be helpful if a figure on the accepted bat butcher’s bill could be produced. For its part, the Bat Conservation Trust takes a sympathetic line noting that there has been evidence of bat collision with wind turbines for 20 years, but it supports the development of wind power. Sympathetic towards the highly subsidised wind energy business, it would seem, rather than the unfortunate bats.

    Meanwhile, off the eastern coast of the United States whales continue to beach in unusually high numbers. The latest fatality was a humpback that was washed ashore on the New Jersey coast, bringing the total to around 300 fatalities in the last five years. Many suggest the deaths have been caused by massive offshore construction of wind turbine parks, with extensive sonar soundings and pile-driving causing havoc with aquatic feeding, breeding and migration up and down the coast. “This alarming number of deaths is unprecedented in the last century,” said Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Ocean Clean Action, adding, “the only unique factor from previous years is the excessive scope, scale and magnitude of offshore wind powerplant activity in the area.”

    The veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has weighed in on official denials that the massive offshore building works are wreaking environmental damage. “They’re lying,” he charged, and he called the issue around the industrialisation in previously pristine waters, “the biggest environmental scandal in the world”.

    Like

  10. Net Zero cannot work. Attempting to make it work will result in the deaths of millions of people via energy poverty and general economic destruction. It will also kill countless millions of animals and industrialise millions of acres of natural habitat as well as taking valuable farmland out of production – farmland which feeds people. They know this, they know that unilateral decarbonisation is a pointless exercise anyway, but still they plough straight ahead regardless. That’s not stupidity or mass delusion, it’s pure malice.

    Like

  11. This is interesting:

    “Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
    Swedish teenager Ia Anstoot says group’s ‘unscientific’ opposition to EU nuclear power serves fossil fuel interests”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/young-climate-activist-tells-greenpeace-to-drop-old-fashioned-anti-nuclear-stance

    An 18-year-old climate activist has called for Greenpeace to drop its “old-fashioned and unscientific” campaign against nuclear power in the EU.

    In April, the environmental campaign group announced it would appeal against the EU Commission’s decision to include nuclear power in its classification system for sustainable finance. This “taxonomy” is designed as a guide for private investors wanting to fund green projects, aiming to boost environmental investment….

    …This week, Aanstoot submitted papers to the EU court of justice asking to become an “interested party” in the upcoming legal battle between the European Commission and Greenpeace. If the court approves the request, she and other pro-nuclear campaigners will be able to provide testimony in favour of nuclear power.

    Greenpeace has argued that the EU classification system is “greenwashing” that allows nuclear power plants to receive money that otherwise would have gone to renewables. Lawyers acting for the NGO have said nuclear energy causes “significant harm to the environment” so should not be included in the taxonomy.

    Aanstoot said: “Over a third of the clean energy in the EU is nuclear power, so Greenpeace’s motion to get rid of it is really harmful, I think. And I would definitely prefer to be working together with Greenpeace to get rid of fossil fuels. But when they are actively fighting such a large and useful tool like nuclear power, I don’t feel like I can work with them.

    “Greenpeace is stuck in the past fighting clean, carbon-free nuclear energy while the world is literally burning. We need to be using all the tools available to address climate change and nuclear is one of them. I’m tired of having to fight my fellow environmentalists about this when we should be fighting fossil fuels together.”…

    Greenpeace do seem to be obsessed with pushing renewable energy above all else, and regardless of the cost and damage caused thereby. According to a Greenpeace spokesperson:

    …“The good news is that we don’t need new nuclear. Solar and wind technologies are a much cheaper and quicker way to cut emissions, and with modern storage tech, 100 percent renewable systems are perfectly possible. Encouraging investments into nuclear energy by including it in the EU taxonomy risks diverting funding away from renewables, home insulation and support for people hit by extreme weather. We don’t have the luxury of endless time and resources so we should focus them on the solutions with the best chance of delivering.”

    Like

  12. Mark,

    Dumb slogs it out with Dumber. Dumb says can no longer work with Dumber. Oh Lord deliver us from these squabbling idiotic eco-zealots.

    Like

  13. Michael Shellenberger is making great progress getting the message out there that wind farm developers are killing whales:

    “But our documentary has hit a nerve. Within the first 48 hours of it being online, over 20,000 people re-posted it, and over 6 million people total, across two tweets, have viewed the posts with the embedded trailer for “Thrown To The Wind.”

    And, now, Republican members of Congress tell me they want to hold hearings to investigate.

    I have been involved in a lot of great causes in the 35 years that I have been politically active. This one, saving the whales, is easily one of the most noble and important. One of my first political memories as a boy was the Greenpeace “Save the Whales” sticker in my father’s food co-op.”

    https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/new-documentary-proves-that-offshore-windfarms-kill-whales/

    Like

  14. “Ballymacormick Point: Dead whale washes up on County Down coast”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66694254

    …Although mass whale strandings have been reported in Britain as far back as 1762, numbers are on the rise.

    Cases have increased from an average of one whale stranding per year from the 1940s to the 1980s, to six per year from the 1980s to today.

    One of the UK’s worst strandings – a pod of 55 pilot whales – happened in July of this year…</blockquote

    And yet there seems to be no desire to explore why this might be happening.

    Like

  15. Fishermen Fight to End to Offshore Wind Industry’s Wholesale Whale Slaughter

    The wind industry’s mindless slaughter of whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals is completely legit, thanks to government-backed licenses known as the ‘Incidental Harassment Authorization’.

    The principal cause of the carnage is the seismic geo-surveys conducted before the turbines get speared into the seabed. With their sonar systems duly scrambled by the underwater cacophony, the whales meander dazed, confused and unable to avoid ships on the move. The collisions with shipping are, more often than not, fatal and the whale’s floating carcass simply washes up onshore, as another wind industry statistic. The Federal government marks the fatality down as ‘incidental harassment’, and its agencies work overtime to exonerate the wind industry with the usual grab bag of lies and obfuscation….

    I don’t know whether this is true, but it certainly strikes me as plausible.

    And h/t to Jaime for noticing the Incidental Harrassment Authorization procedure.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Much seismic would have been done before and after drilling for hydrocarbons. Did this result in whale stranding? I don’t recall any, but then for several decades I lived overseas.

    Like

  17. Alan,

    In my piece I cite the Guardian article from July, which points out that oil and gas exploration (inter alia) have been blamed for whale strandings. And such blame might be attributed correctly.

    What I struggle with is an ability to accept that this might be so, while determinedly insisting that the current surge in strandings, often in locations where there is a surge in offshore wind farm activities, can’t possibly have anything to do with said wind farm activities.

    I suggest that offshore wind farm activity currently is on a far greater scale, so far as cetaceans are concerned, than offshore oil and gas exploration, past and present.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Mark, Alan,

    Oil and gas exploration have been ongoing for many years in certain areas. NOAA for instance have a long history of granting ‘harassment permits’ for activities involving exploitation of hydrocarbons, which adversely affect marine life. This includes increased shipping, drilling and offshore site surveying. The difference with the wind industry is that it is expanding very quickly into areas which have not traditionally seen much industrial and shipping activity, e.g. Scottish Islands and NE USA Atlantic seaboard. Wildlife in these areas has not had time to adapt/relocate in response to the very significant uptick in activity; hence it may be the case that the wind industry is now having a disproportionate impact upon marine life, made worse by the fanatical determination of the authorities and regulators (aided and abetted by the MSM) to deny any culpability on behalf of the untouchable wind industry for whale deaths especially.

    Like

  19. The thing about seismic exploration related to hydrocarbons in the North Sea and whale mortality is that as different areas opened up there should have been a noticeable geographic correspondence between different areas of the North Sea undergoing exploration activities and regions where whales stranded. This would have been strong evidence for a link. Mention of whale strandings somewhere in the North Sea when seismic exploration occurred perhaps elsewhere would not be evidence for a link.

    Interestingly instances of no correspondence cannot be used to disprove a link: seismic work and no strandings could mean no cetaceans present and strandings with no seismic could merely indicate more than one cause for strandings.

    Like

  20. Alan,

    I can’t fault your logic. And for the record, I have not claimed that offshore wind farm developments are definitely causing whale strandings.

    What I do say is that those who claim that oil and gas exploration caused whale strandings, but who refuse to countenance the possibility that offshore wind farm activities might be doing so, are being inconsistent, and are putting their obsession with greenhouse gas emissions before conservation.

    Like

  21. I would add that as whale strandings reach very high (unprecedented?) levels, in or near areas of large scale wind farm activities, the possibility that there might be a link should not be ignored.

    Like

  22. Mark. I also believe there is a strong link between something to do with offshore wind turbines (their installation or transmitted vibrations during operation) and cetacean strandings. What I find difficult to believe is that earlier seismic exploration did not reveal an earlier link between noise and the demise of whales.

    Like

  23. Alan,

    We are in agreement. Vague statements in Guardian articles about the putative connection between whale strandings and oil and gas exploration are surprising – one would expect studies to have been undertaken and for the Guardian to be quoting chapter and verse.

    Like

  24. Alan/Mark: might there be some basic difference between the seismic work carried out for oil & gas and that done for wind farms?
    For example, I imagine o&g exploration focusses on a small area where they plan to install a platform whereas wind farms cover a large area.

    Like

  25. Mike. Rather the reverse. Exploratory seismic lines are long. Even seismic lines conducted to confirm oilfield or gas field drilling sites commonly extend for many kilometres. Perhaps a more significant difference might be duration with seismic for hydrocarbons being short.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. “Why won’t Greenpeace admit that wind turbines may be killing whales?”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-wont-greenpeace-admit-that-wind-turbines-may-be-killing-whales/

    So far last year, 71 whales have washed up dead on the shores of New England and neighbouring states. The rate seems to have risen in recent years along with a growth in the number of offshore wind turbines. A small group of concerned citizens have started to campaign against the turbines on behalf of the whales, and the journalist Michael Shellenberger has made a short film about their efforts called Thrown to the Wind.

    The evidence gathered by the scientists in the film is far from conclusive: it’s a correlation that could be a coincidence. But it’s not a mad idea that wind farms threaten whales. For a start, the industry has meant increased traffic in the areas where the whales feed, which could well have led to more collisions between whale and ship.
    More worryingly, the sonar surveying that precedes wind-farm deployment – to map the seabed and its geology – creates a loud, continuous banging noise that could be disorienting or stressful for the whales. Shellenberger’s documentary shows scientists apparently recording far higher noise levels from the survey ships, and at greater distances, than are permitted by the authorities.

    Moreover, when it comes to investigating what killed each whale, the US government relies on a non-profit organisation called the Atlantic Marine Conservation Society. This, the film reveals, has several board members connected to the wind industry – and to the wind developer Equinor in particular.

    You or I might take the view that we should wait and see if better evidence emerges that wind turbines are killing whales. But the big environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace – which in its early years, remember, ran a Save the Whales campaign – don’t believe in waiting for evidence. They revere the ‘precautionary principle’, the whole point of which is that industries should be assumed to be guilty until proved innocent. Lack of definitive evidence must never be used to excuse a potentially devastating environmental vandal.

    So has Greenpeace enthusiastically joined the campaign against offshore wind farms, demanding a precautionary pause till we can be sure they’re not killing the whales? Er, no. Quite the reverse. When somebody tweeted about the issue this week, Greenpeace was quick to dismiss it, sounding like the most shameless corporate toady…

    …But the same is not true of North Atlantic right whales, once probably the most common species in that ocean. The number of these great, dark, slow sea-buffalos has fallen to dangerously low levels. There are fewer than 340 left, and falling. It’s therefore neglectful of the US government – let alone Greenpeace – to be so blasé about the possibility, however remote, of the wind industry killing or even disturbing them.

    In any case, it is not just whales that wind turbines kill. The slaughtering by their spinning blades of bats and eagles and other birds of prey on land, and of gannets and divers at sea, is well documented. Satellite-tagged eagles in southern Scotland now avoid places with wind farms, denying themselves large areas of hills. Yet there is barely a peep from Big Green about this.

    The irritation that Greenpeace exudes in its comments on the whale issue suggests that it is not enjoying being hoist by its own precautionary petard.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. “Whale found dead on North Yorkshire beach”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-66879405

    A minke whale has been found dead on a popular beach in North Yorkshire.

    A dog walker found the carcass at 12:50 BST on Wednesday at Reighton Sands near Filey, the British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR) said.

    Susan Tierney, from BDMLR, said the UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme had been informed, adding there had been a “slight increase” in strandings this year….

    …Last week, a whale, also believed to be a minke, was found dead on the shore at Robin Hood’s Bay near Whitby, and in May a 55ft (17m) male fin whale died after becoming stranded off Bridlington further down the Yorkshire coast….

    Nothing to do with the plethora of offshore windfarms in that part of the North Sea, of course.

    Like

  28. “Offshore wind: Trump blames whale deaths on turbines”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66928305

    Former US President Donald Trump has claimed that wind turbines off the coast of the US “are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before”.

    These claims have attracted significant attention on social media, where a clip of Mr Trump’s speech has now been viewed more than nine million times.

    But Mr Trump’s claims are not backed up by evidence….

    …Since then, hundreds of posts wrongly linking wind farms to whale deaths have been spreading on social media, with hundreds of thousands of views….

    …The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says that, since 2016, a total of 208 humpback whales have been stranded along the country’s east coast.

    The problem was deemed so serious that, in 2017, the US agency dubbed it an “unusual mortality event”.

    NOAA data shows 2023 has been one of the worst years in the last decade when it comes to humpback whale deaths in the US, with 33 strandings so far.

    In a speech on Monday, Mr Trump claimed that “only one such whale” was killed off the coast of South Carolina “in the last 50 years”.

    But records from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources show that, since 1993, at least seven humpback whale strandings have been reported in the state.

    Is there evidence linking whale deaths to wind turbines?
    There is no evidence to back Mr Trump’s suggestion that offshore wind turbines are killing whales.

    NOAA officials carried out post-mortem examinations on about 90 humpback whales found dead since 2016.

    Forty per cent of those deaths were linked to human interaction – whales becoming entangled in fishing nets, or being struck by vessels travelling through their feeding grounds.

    In the remaining cases investigated by NOAA, other factors were listed as possible causes of death, including parasite-caused organ damage or starvation.

    In some cases, the advanced stage of decomposition of the carcasses meant it was impossible to conclusively determine the cause of death….

    …Can offshore wind farms affect marine wildlife?
    NOAA says there are “no known links” between recent large whale mortality rates and offshore wind surveys. But that doesn’t mean building windfarms comes at no cost for natural habitats.

    Before offshore wind farms are built, the ocean floor needs to be surveyed by sending acoustic waves into it.

    Some activists have, in the past, suggested that using such techniques might lead to whale deaths.

    “There’s lots of evidence that when you’re putting the wind farms in place, it does generate a lot of percussive noise, and that can have an impact,” says Mr Deaville.

    “Particularly things like porpoises or dolphins, they may move out of that area while you’re pushing the wind farms in, but then the longer-term picture: in some areas they never come back, in some they come back in bigger numbers than before.”

    The extraordinary determination of some people who ought to know better (seemingly compounded by Trump Derangement Syndrome) to deny that offshore windfarms have anything to do with whale deaths is something to behold. All because “climate change” trumps everything, so measures to deal with climate change (but which won’t do so), such as wind farms, must be defended at all costs.

    The BBC churns out the same utterly non-conclusive NOAA findings that have been referred to above on this thread, and yet finishes the article by implicitly acknowledging that there may be a problem. Some fact check!

    Like

  29. The BBC is very upset about Rosebank. And I admit it may be as bad environmentally as an offshore wind farm, but the difference in reporting on the two is staggering:

    “What about other potential environmental impacts?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment

    at 15.38 today:

    …To extract oil and gas from a facility like this, a series of wells are drilled into the seabed and then the products extracted to a ship moored to the seabed. This offloads the oil onto big ships called tankers, while the gas is sent down a pipeline.

    The drilling and anchoring of the ship, as well as chemicals released, have the potential to disturb the seabed and damage habitats – and potentially kill animals living there such as soft corals and sea spiders.

    There is also a lot of noise produced underwater when oil is extracted. This is important because many species in the marine environment use sound to communicate….

    All too sadly, no doubt this is true. But compare and contrast with the BBC report I commented on above on this thread yesterday:

    ““Offshore wind: Trump blames whale deaths on turbines””

    Is there evidence linking whale deaths to wind turbines?
    There is no evidence to back Mr Trump’s suggestion that offshore wind turbines are killing whales.

    Like

  30. “UK Govt rejects request to share whale stranding data, fuelling suspicions over offshore wind farms.”

    https://jasonendfield.medium.com/uk-govt-rejects-request-to-share-whale-stranding-data-fuelling-suspicions-over-offshore-wind-farms-65b6ffb80e5d

    Defra, the UK government department that holds information on cetacean strandings, has declined to share the latest data for whale deaths, saying that it’s ‘not in the public interest to do so at this time’ and that the figures will be published – “eventually”

    But a Five-fold increase in reported strandings suggests something’s very wrong in our seas.
    In 2018, more than 1000 whales, dolphins and porpoises were washed up on UK beaches – coinciding with the expansion of the offshore wind industry.

    While recent statistics from other countries are in the public domain, the UK’s delay in publishing data has increased speculation that the government might be hiding another sharp increase in cetacean strandings, and it’s fuelling further suspicions of a link between wind farms and the demise of marine life….

    …What changed? Could it be the rapid increase in offshore wind farms?

    I’ve long suggested that it’s more than a coincidence. Cetaceans rely on highly sensitive echolocation, or biosonar, systems for navigation and to find food. Noise emanating from wind farms, especially during surveys and construction, can disorientate marine mammals and lead them to strand.

    We know that there are many other sources of artificial noise in our oceans, but when there is such a steep rise in cetacean deaths we have a duty to look for the cause, even if that means examining the role of the ‘untouchable’ wind industry.

    Where’s the data? Defra say we will see it “eventually”

    It would of course be useful to see the UK data compiled since 2018, but for the past few years the statistics have been hidden from public view, raising eyebrows – and questions…. but still the authorities are in no hurry to share the information.

    With vast funds invested in the renewables industry, and promises made for further expansion, there’s little willingness from the UK government to publicly acknowledge any detrimental environmental effects from wind farms, so when I asked Defra for the latest data on whale deaths around our coasts, it was perhaps not surprising that they declined to tell me, even through a Freedom of Information request.

    They said it would be published “eventually”.

    There was no mention of exactly when that might be….

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Mark,

    After the North Sea algal bloom fiasco, I wouldn’t trust Defra as far as I could throw them.

    Like

  33. We really could do without Trump getting involved in this discussion, since anything he lends support to gives the TDS lobby an excuse to rubbish anything he says. And he shoots from the hip saying things in an unmeasured way that gives them the perfect opportunity to do so. Still, reading the following article in the Guardian (of course, where else?) it strikes me as amazing the lengths some people will go to in their efforts to claim that offshore wind turbines have nothing to do with whale deaths and strandings (while elsewhere arguing that oil and gas drilling do have such impacts). I accept the latter, but I don’t see how both claims can be made (i.e. oil/gas drilling bad for whales; wind turbines harmless to whales).

    “Trump falsely claims wind turbines lead to whale deaths by making them ‘batty’
    Ex-president attacks clean energy by making multiple false statements at South Carolina rally”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/26/trump-whale-wind-turbine-renewable-energy-misinformation

    Like

  34. “How a huge new LNG plant spells ‘dire’ trouble for whales off Canada’s coast”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/07/how-a-huge-new-lng-plant-spells-dire-trouble-for-whales-off-canadas-coast

    It’s possible that every word in this article is true. If so, we should be very concerned. However, it’s worth comparing and contrasting the certainty that an LNG plant spells deep trouble for whales, with the equal apparent certainty that offshore wind farms cause them absolutely no harm at all. I’m pretty confident that if a sudden spike in whale deaths and strandings occurred at the same time as an increase in oil and/or gas exploration offshore, there would be immediate calls for work to stop until a detailed investigation had been carried out. Yet when a sudden spike in whale deaths and strandings coincides with increased offshore wind turbine activity we are simply told to move along, that there’s nothing to see here.

    Like

  36. Michael Shellenberger somewhat overestimates the role played by himself and public protests at whale deaths methinks for the recent very welcome decision by Orsted to abandon its wind projects in New Jersey. I fear hard economics was the deciding factor, not whales. But whatever the reason, the end result is good for whales, bad for the wind industry and its crony capitalist ‘Green’ investors:

    They said it couldn’t be stopped but we stopped it — thanks to supporters like you

    For years, the Biden administration, environmentalists, and the wind industry have argued that the building of giant wind turbines along the East Coast was inevitable. Wind energy was already cheaper than fossil fuels, supporters claimed. And President Joe Biden made wind energy a significant priority and was photographed in a meeting with wind executives holding talking points touting its benefits.

    But now, Danish wind energy company Orsted has cancelled its South New Jersey projects, Ocean Wind 1 and 2, in the face of rising public opposition, evidence that wind industry activities were killing whales, and worsening economics. Ocean Wind 1 and 2 would have sited more than 200 massive wind turbines just 15 miles away from the New Jersey shore.

    Orsted’s stock has fallen 60% this year and the New York Times estimates it will have to write off $5.6 billion in investments in the two projects. “There’s really not a Plan B right now,” confessed Jeff Tittel, the former director of the Sierra Club’s New Jersey chapter. “It’s a political disaster.”

    https://public.substack.com/p/victory-orsted-abandons-whale-killing

    Liked by 1 person

  37. This is interesting, not least as it contains an admission that there is indeed a problem associated with offshore windfarms:

    “How bubble curtains protect porpoises from wind farm noise”

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231106-the-big-bubble-curtains-protecting-porpoises-from-wind-farm-noise

    As huge offshore wind farms spread across Europe’s North and Baltic seas, efforts grow to buffer the impact on wildlife.

    Over the past decade, a curious invention has spread across Europe’s northern seas. It’s called a big bubble curtain, it works a bit like a giant jacuzzi, and it helps protect porpoises from the massive underwater noise caused by wind farm construction.

    A very large, perforated hose is laid on the seabed, encircling the wind turbine site. Air is pumped through, and bubbles rise from the holes to the surface of the water, forming a noise-buffering veil.

    The quirky gadget, also known as a big bubble veil, was pioneered in Germany to help protect the endangered harbour porpoise, the only cetacean species living in its North Sea and Baltic Sea. The bubble curtain was designed around the porpoise’s specific needs and traits, lowering wind farm construction noise to a threshold deemed safe for the species, based on scientific research. Its proven muffling effect may also benefit other marine mammals that are vulnerable to noise, such as seals….

    …Countries including the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Belgium have pledged to turn the North Sea into “the world’s largest green power plant”, aiming to jointly increase their offshore wind capacity there to 300GW by 2050. At the same time, they are under pressure to reduce the potential impact of wind farm construction noise on marine creatures, for whom sound is everything.

    “Pretty much every creature in the sea relies on underwater sound. On land, most animals tend to use vision as their main sense, but in the underwater world, it’s hearing,” says Carina Juretzek, a specialist in underwater noise at Germany’s Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, which regulates and approves offshore wind farms.

    The small, round harbour porpoise is very sensitive to sound. It uses echolocation to navigate, communicate, hunt and avoid obstacles in often dark or murky waters, emitting ultrasonic clicks that bounce off fish or objects. Loud, human-made underwater noise – including from shipping and offshore wind farm construction – can disturb and disorient the porpoise….

    …In the North Sea, the number of wind turbines has risen from only 80 in 2002, to more than 4,000 today – and many more are planned as part of the green energy revolution. Spinning in fierce, fast sea winds, offshore turbines can produce more energy than those on land. On average, an onshore wind turbine generates around 2.5 to 3 megawatts (MW), whereas the average offshore turbine produces 3.6 MW. The scale of the latest offshore models is staggering, with heights of more than 270 metres (890ft), and each blade measuring more than 100 metres (330ft), about the length of a football pitch. A single turbine can generate enough power for a small town of 18,000 households every year. Construction of the Dogger Bank Wind Farm, a development off the coast of England, involved a ship that’s as tall as the Eiffel Tower.

    As one might expect, installing these giants at sea comes with a lot of noise.

    Even before the building begins, the seabed may have to be cleared of toxic World War Two bombs or mines ­– which happens via controlled explosions. Next, a long steel foundation, called a pile, is driven deep into the seabed with several thousand hydraulic hammer blows. This foundation then supports the turbine. The process is called pile-driving, and its sound is a source of concern to regulators and scientists who monitor the wellbeing of porpoises.

    “Pile-driving noise really is one of the more intense human-made noises we can inflict on the environment,” says Juretzek. “There’s scientific evidence that this kind of noise would affect the marine environment, if it’s not reduced in some way. And that’s why Germany has decided that this pile-driving noise has to be lowered through various technical steps.”

    At close range, pile-driving noise can cause temporary hearing loss or even permanent deafness in harbour porpoises, leaving them disoriented and unable to survive. There can also be indirect damage. A 2013 study of pile-driving during the first offshore wind farm built in the German North Sea found that the noise prompted harbour porpoises to flee the area, swimming more than 20km (12 miles) away. Harbour porpoises need to eat and hunt almost constantly to meet their energy needs. Fleeing over long distances can disrupt that vital activity and make them vulnerable to starvation. Seals may be similarly affected….

    …Other noise related to wind farm construction, such as shipping traffic, can also disturb them. In fact, before pile-driving, loud noise is used on purpose to scare them away for their own safety. There is some evidence, however, that such loud deterrents may harm the mammals’ hearing…

    …Some experts caution that the current noise-reducing measures may not be sufficient to protect an already stressed harbour porpoise population from the wider impact of ever bigger wind farms and turbines, with more intense construction noise….

    …Wind farm noise adds another potential stressor, according to Siebert – and not just during the pile-driving phase, but also potentially from ship traffic to maintain the turbines. Even the bubble curtain comes with noise: “The bubble curtain doesn’t just appear, it has to be transported there, and installed, and that has an impact of its own. If it were only 100 turbines, it wouldn’t be so bad, it would happen and then be over. But now there’s hardly a recovery phase, because there’s so much pile-driving, and so much more is planned.”

    In her view, there needs to be a more honest and open debate about the state of the porpoise population, and the impact of human activity. This may also mean putting more emphasis on the need to save energy, “so we don’t push further and further into wildlife habitats” by building new wind farms….

    Like

  38. Mark,

    No mention of acoustic surveying, which is the number one cause of marine mammal deaths and injuries PRIOR to construction of wind ‘farms’, for which bubble curtains would NOT be of any use.

    Like

  39. “How a false claim about wind turbines killing whales is spinning out of control in coastal Australia”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/12/how-a-false-claim-about-wind-turbines-killing-whales-is-spinning-out-of-control-in-coastal-australia

    A fairly nasty piece (inevitably referencing Trump) rubbishing the substantial Australian opposition to offshore wind farms, and apparently ignoring the substantial evidence of harms mentioned in the BBC piece I referenced above on 7th November. How can this be? The Guardian and the BBC are usually in lock-step on such issues.

    It takes a special sort of environmentalist to ignore rising numbers of whale deaths and strandings coincident with rising numbers of off-shore wind farm developments. As I keep acknowledging, correlation is not causation, but one might expect environmentalists to be curious and concerned at the coincidence, and to dig a little deeper, rather than rubbishing anyone who is concerned about the coincidence.

    Like

  42. “PRESS RELEASE: Coalition Files Notice of Intent to Sue Federal Agencies to Stop Whale-killing Virginia Wind Project”

    https://heartland.org/opinion/press-release-coalition-files-notice-of-intent-to-sue-federal-agencies-to-stop-whale-killing-virginia-wind-project/

    …The 60 Day Notice is required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for parties who wish to commence litigation against BOEM for failure to provide adequate protection of the North Atlantic right whale and other endangered species. The North Atlantic right whale is listed as “critically endangered” by governments of both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States. Numerous studies by federal and environmental organizations have found that only about 350 North Atlantic right whales remain in existence.

    CFACT and The Heartland Institute assert that the Biological Opinion issued by the NMFS fails to consider the cumulative impact of the entire East Coast offshore wind program ordered by the Biden administration, and ignores the “best scientific information available” about the endangered population of the North Atlantic right whale. The biological opinion found that the VOW would not cause a single death of that species of whale over its 30-year projected lifetime — although it did acknowledge the wind project could result in Level B harassment. That level could, according to NMFS, result in indirect death, requiring the need for a “take” permit, which authorizes the “harassment” and potential killing of the North Atlantic right whale….

    Like

  43. Sod the fishes, the lobsters, the phytoplankton, the whales, the dolphins and the porpoises. Sod ’em all.

    The destruction wrought by wind turbines extends well beyond what it’s doing to whales.

    A report just released by a New England fishermen association summarizes research they completed on offshore wind projects. Their findings are stunning. Just the geographic extent of these proposed offshore wind projects is unprecedented. According to the report, “Federal regulators at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have designated almost 10 million acres for wind farm surveys and development.” That is over 15,000 square miles.

    Not included in that allocation are the corridors where high voltage lines will have to cross the ocean floor to transfer electricity from the turbines to land-based power grids. The report found that “electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emanating from subsea cables appear to produce birth deformities in juvenile lobster.” That’s just the beginning.

    The report also found that wind farms “increase sea surface temperatures and alter upper-ocean hydrodynamics in ways scientists do not yet understand,” and “whip up sea sediment and generate highly turbid wakes that are 30-150 meters wide and several kilometers in length, having a major impact on primary production by phytoplankton which are the base of marine food chains.” And there’s more.

    Wind turbines “generate operational noise in a low frequency range (less than 700 Hz) with most energy concentrated between 2 and 200 Hz. This frequency range overlaps with that used by fish for communication, mating, spawning, and spatial movement,” and “high voltage direct current undersea cables produce magnetic fields that negatively affect the drifting trajectory of haddock larvae by interfering with their magnetic orientation abilities.” Haddock are “a significant portion of U.S. commercial fish landings and are an important component of the marine food chain.”

    “The scandalous double standard at work here can only be attributed to a combination of powerful special interests representing the wind power industry, interacting with a state legislature and environmentalist movement that is either bought off or alarmingly stupid. As it is, hundreds of billions of taxpayer subsidies are on track to pay for offshore wind. If it is not stopped, it will be one of the most egregious cases of economic waste and environmental destruction in human history.”

    Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe

    Liked by 1 person

  44. By the way, straight talking Edward Ring also thinks that we should definitely challenge these climate fanatics and wreckers of the environment on the NECESSITY for their hare-brained solutions to a non-existent climate crisis:

    “If you concede the science, and only challenge the policies that a biased and politicized scientific narrative is being used to justify, you’re already playing defense in your own red zone. You’re going to lose the game. Who cares if we have to enslave humanity? Our alternative is certain death from global boiling! You can’t win that argument. You must challenge the science, and you can, because scientists like John Christy and others are still available.”

    Climate Data Refutes Crisis Narrative

    Like

  45. Another sad story that might have nothing to do with offshore wind farms (certainly the way the story is written does carry suggestions that other factors might be at work). However, it’s worth noting, for all that, the whale in question was washed up on a beach not far from one of Cornwall’s earliest offshore wind farms (Carland Cross) the “repowering” of which was completed ten years ago:

    “Female fin whale found dead on Cornwall beach”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3p8mv08yko

    Like

  46. This is a prime example of just how callous the Guardian has become when it comes to commenting on the environment. They freely admit that the number of dead whales on our beaches is growing, year by year, but offer no explanation and show no concern as to why that is happening. All they are interested in reporting on is how to ‘get rid of’ the carcass before decay gases build up and cause it to explode (or maybe before too many members of the public witness the dead whale). Just how callous and uncaring can ‘environmentalists’ get? I find the entire article to be quite disgusting, akin to a report say, on how do you ‘get rid of’ the annoying piles of dead bodies following Islamic terrorist attacks. Because that’s what happening – environmental terrorism by committed by ‘Green’ wind farm developers, enabled by complicit government, using taxpayers’ money.

    “After a dead fin whale washed up on a beach in Newquay, Cornwall, this week, experts are now dealing with a logistical challenge: how do you get rid of a carcass weighing several tonnes? And what do you do if it explodes?

    Hundreds of whales become stranded along the British coastline each year, and the numbers are rising. Since the Zoological Society of London’s Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme (CSIP) was founded in 1990, it has recorded 17,850 cetacean strandings in the UK. There has been an unusually high number of whale strandings so far this year, including that of a pod of 55 pilot whales that washed up on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland in July in one of the UK’s biggest mass strandings to date.

    “When I started this job 25 years ago, you might be looking at 500 to 600 strandings a year, but now we are looking at 1,000,” said the CSIP project manager Rob Deaville, one of the experts who conducted postmortem examinations on July’s mass stranding.

    The discovery of a stranded whale poses an array of problems for the local councils and organisations tasked with disposing of the carcass.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/17/how-do-you-get-rid-of-a-beached-whale-before-it-explodes

    Liked by 1 person

  47. You climate deniers are always so keen to blame whale strandings on renewables but what if the real cause of the strandings is an elitist plot by arms manufacturers, MI5, Tony Blair and George W Bush to distract ordinary people from what really matters?

    https://archive.org/details/BBC_Radio_4_Extra_20170620_220000_As_Told_to_Craig_Brown?start=625

    Tony Benn was on to this in 2006. That’s 17 years ago, half the lifespan of a typical bottlenosed whale. Wake up, sheeple!

    Like

  48. “Offshore wind farms, dead whales and the row that’s started a green-on-green civil war
    Clean energy crusaders are at loggerheads with conservationists over claims the turbines are killing cetaceans”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/11/22/is-the-rise-in-whale-deaths-due-to-offshore-wind-farms/

    The helpless body of a huge whale washed up on the shoreline is always a sombre sight. But the discovery of a dead 52ft fin whale on Newquay’s Fistral Beach at dawn last week was particularly depressing for locals, who have been spotting a growing number of the majestic animals off their coast in recent months. “It’s heartbreaking,” said resident Kathryn Fuller.

    The increase in whale sightings off Cornwall had been greeted as a sign that marine life was thriving. But the whale’s death was a reminder that beachings often have a man-made cause, such as fishing, naval sonar (which, it is thought, causes whales to surface too quickly, leading to decompression sickness) or collisions with ships. “These intelligent beings look so sad and helpless out of the water,” says Danny Groves of Whale and Dolphin Conservation.

    And now there is fierce global debate about whether another factor could be at play in such incidents: offshore wind farms – a controversy that has set the passionately pursued ‘green’ agendas of renewable energy activists and conservationists against one another.

    The finger-pointing began in February with a spate of strandings and deaths of baleen whales (the name for humpbacks, fin whales and blue whales) on America’s east coast, which some blamed on huge turbines off the US seaboard…

    …Former Greenpeace Canada president Dr Patrick Moore agrees that wind farms are harmful to whales: “The development of these wind farms is interfering massively with the actual known habitat of these creatures,” he said in May. But Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, and has since become a frequent critic of the green movement. Today, the campaign group disavows his comments, suggesting that the whale-vs-wind farm controversy may even be a conspiracy whipped up to discredit renewables.

    “Academics have linked these attempts [at controversy] in the US with oil and gas interests,” says Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace UK. Such stories, he adds, “exploit the admirable concern that people have for the natural environment.” Yet, he acknowledges, “offshore wind needs to be sited where it will least impact wildlife.”

    The most obvious problem is noise. Our seas are getting ever louder – a 2016 estimate of global shipping noise projected a near doubling by 2030. “Introducing loud underwater noise pollution from military exercises, or seismic surveys for oil and gas has a dramatic effect on [whales’ and dolphins’] lives and wellbeing,” explains Groves. “It can cause them suffering, change their behaviour and drive them away from the places where they breed and feed. In some cases it can cause them to strand and die.”

    But it’s not just military exercises or seismic surveys that are loud. Building huge wind farms is noisy work too. According to Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the use of pile drivers in the construction of offshore wind farms adversely affects the behaviour of whales, dolphins and porpoises to distances of up to 25 miles. They can even be injured or killed if they are too close to the source of the sound, they say. …

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Mark, as I pointed out in my Substack post, it’s highly likely that acoustic underwater surveys for floating offshore wind platforms in the Atlantic off the coasts of Devon and Cornwall and Pembrokeshire have been ongoing since Spring 2023. Does the Telegraph point this out? Probably not, though I’ve yet to read the article.

    Like

  51. “Mass whale strandings: what is behind the recent spate of ‘suicidal’ urges?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/12/whale-strandings-could-this-suicidal-urge-stem-from-strong-social-bonds

    No answer is given, but there seems a distinct lack of interest in the possibility that it might have anything to do with windfarms (the possibility isn’t even touched on). The closest we get to the possibility even being hinted at very indirectly is this:

    …Other underwater noise can be hard to detect from a postmortem, however, yet can be fatally disorientating or distressing – akin to suddenly blindfolding and scaring a group of humans near a clifftop. A report is expected from Marine Scotland on what underwater noise was present before the stranding….

    Like

  53. “Wind farm off New Jersey likely to ‘adversely affect’ but not kill whales, feds say”

    https://news.yahoo.com/wind-farm-off-jersey-likely-164625651.html

    The lone remaining offshore wind project in New Jersey with preliminary approval is likely to “adversely affect” whales and other marine mammals, but its construction, operation and eventual dismantling will not seriously harm or kill them, a federal scientific agency said.

    In a biological opinion issued Monday night, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the Atlantic Shores project, to be built off the state’s southern coast, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species of endangered whales, sea turtles, or fish.

    Nor is it anticipated to destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat, the agency said….

    …NOAA said it does not anticipate that the project will seriously injure or kill any endangered whale, and added there should be no impact to any critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale, only 360 or so of which remain in the world.

    With proposed protective measures in place for the project, NOAA predicted that “all effects to North Atlantic right whales will be limited to temporary behavioral disturbance.”

    Three federal scientific agencies — NOAA, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Marine Mammal Commission — along with New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection say there is no evidence linking offshore wind activities to whale deaths….

    Like

  54. Really? No lethal effects upon ANY whales? Look at table 46. It specifies a total of 26 IHA level A (lethal) takes of whales over the 5 year construction period. Zero level A IHA for North Atlantic Right Whales ONLY. 30 seals and porpoises are allowed to be killed too. The Level B harassment authorisations are far more numerous and there is no guarantee that these will not also lead to a number of fatalities. Also, note level B IHAs for North Atlantic Right Whale – a huge 3.5% of the already critically endangered population! This document is dated June 2023 so it looks like the public are being lied to again. Also, we have evidence from boats actually recording activities in the Atlantic that the acoustic surveys being done by wind companies are far louder, over larger distances, than specified by the company in the application to NOAA, so we should take all of NOAA’s estimates of IHAs level A and B with a large pinch of salt.

    chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-09/Atlantic-Shores-PDEUpdates-LOAUpdatesPDEMemo-OPR1.pdf

    Like

  55. Unlike some organisations, I try to avoid lying by omission, so I mention this, FWIW:

    “Fin whale stranded on Fistral ‘probably died of measles type virus'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-67790334

    ..Veterinary pathologist James Barnett, from the Cornwall marine pathology team, said: “The fin whale had an inflammation of the brain.

    “We need to do some further testing to work out exactly the cause, but it’s likely to be a morbillivirus, the most closely related human form is measles.”…

    Like

  56. Here’s another one:

    “Minke whale washes up on Kent shore”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gyzqrv9qdo

    Perhaps, as with frenzied reporting of extreme weather, we are simply more aware of these events thanks to smartphones, internet and 24/7 news reporting. However, it’s definitely looking as though something has changed. Climate change, or offshore wind farms?

    Like

  57. “Associated Press Got It Wrong: Wind Farm Contractors Acknowledge Turbines Harm Dolphins, Whales”

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/28/memo-to-ap-wind-farm-contractors-admit-turbines-harm-whales-dolphins/

    …Atlantic Shores and Ørsted’s Ocean Winds both requested permission to harm ocean mammals in their applications for New Jersey offshore-wind projects. And, since boats ramped up offshore surveys in May 2022, 31 dead whales have washed up on New Jersey and surrounding beaches.

    Ørsted, which in November pulled out of a proposed New Jersey offshore wind farm, requested permission to harm 30 whales, 3,231 dolphins, 82 porpoises, and eight seals through sound waves generated by its surveys—although the company claims that the damage would be negligible.

    The precise numbers and detailed species can be found on the website of the NOAA, in Ørsted’s Application for Incidental Harassment Authorization (Table 9).

    Atlantic Shores, owned by Dutch Shell oil and French EDF, is still seeking permission to locate an offshore wind farm in New Jersey. In its Request for Incidental Harassment (Table 6-3) it stated that acoustic waves associated with the siting of the wind turbines would likely affect 10 whales, 662 dolphins, 206 porpoises, and 546 seals (also termed a negligible amount). It received permission to harm these marine animals.

    Although the companies describe effects as “negligible,” the NOAA website states that it’s difficult to measure the effects of manmade sounds on mammals.

    “Acoustic trauma, which could result from close exposure to loud human-produced sounds, is very challenging to assess, particularly with any amount of decomposition,” or damage to the whale’s body, states NOAA on its website.

    Sean Hayes, chief of protected species for the NOAA, wrote in a letter to Brian Hooker, lead biologist at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: “The development of offshore wind poses risks to these species [right whales], which is magnified in southern New England waters due to species abundance and distribution … . However, unlike vessel traffic and noise, which can be mitigated to some extent, oceanographic impacts from installed and operating turbines cannot be mitigated for the 30-year life span of the project, unless they are decommissioned.”…

    Liked by 1 person

  58. Well, bloody hell, what do you know? Somebody else has noticed that these wind farm operators were granted specific licence by NOAA to HARM sea mammals, including whales, right up to the level of KILLING them in pursuit of their operations to install turbines. Wonders never cease!

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Sorry Jaime, the curse of the spam filter struck again. I should have pointed out when posting the link to that article that you were ahead of the game in spotting those NOAA licences.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Here’s another one:

    “Large whale discovered washed up on Fife beach”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy6e9027y65o

    A large whale has died after being found stranded on a beach in Fife.

    The mammal, believed to be a fin whale, was found in shallow water on Culross beach by a walker on Wednesday afternoon.

    The whale is likely to have been washed up as a result of the recent storms that lashed the country….

    That isn’t a quote, it just seems to be what the BBC has decided – it was the storms that did it (handy, really, since they do their best to link storms to climate change). It’s possible, I suppose, but as whales spend much of their time well below the surface, it doesn’t seem to be the obvious or most likely explanation for this stranding. On the other hand, there are a few windfarms offshore from Fife, either operating or in the course of construction.

    Like

  62. Another report on a whale death from the corporation which gave us the gross ‘misrepresentation’ of Covid deaths in order to promote the case for lockdowns.

    Like

  67. Irony:

    “Study finds oil platform removal moved porpoises”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce97j6296p6o

    “A study has found that marine mammals are affected by offshore decommissioning work – but their behaviour returns to normal when a project is complete.

    Aberdeen University researchers studied the impact on porpoises in the Moray Firth during the work to remove the Jacky platform.

    They found the noise levels in the water increased by up to 40 decibels due to a number of vessels that were present during the decommissioning work.

    The porpoises were displaced, but by less than 2km (1.2 miles), which is similar to the effect that any vessel generally has on the mammals.

    It is hoped the study will now be used to provide evidence for the consenting process of future decommissioning projects.”

    All of the above, and apparently offshore wind farms have no, or very little, effect on cetaceans. Or so we are assured on a regular basis.

    Like

  68. “Bodies of sperm whales wash up on beaches”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxxz08x9n22o

    “The carcasses of three sperm whales have been found in East Yorkshire and North East Lincolnshire.

    Two currently remain on mud on the banks of the Humber estuary near Spurn Point.

    It is not clear when the whales entered the estuary or if they will be removed….”

    No mention – of course – of the huge offshore wind farms in those parts. Nothing to see here (apart from some very large whale carcasses…).

    Like

  69. These tragedies are being ignored, not only by the wind industry and its backers, but also very often by those opposed to the proliferation of renewables. Cetacean Lives Matter.

    Like

  70. A strange sort of investigation, that concludes:

    “…Rob Deaville, from the Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme, said the evidence gathered will be “detailed” but added the whales have been dead too long to establish a cause of death.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpr0nx2jenqo

    “London Zoo experts investigate Humber whale deaths”

    Like

  71. “Rope-entangled right whale spotted off coast of New England

    The marine mammals are increasingly endangered as warmer waters push them into ship traffic and fishing gear”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/13/right-whale-new-england

    An extraordinary piece of reporting, ignoring the elephant in the room, and seeking to blame whale deaths (“Several right whales have died this year off Georgia and Massachusetts, and environmental groups fear the species could be headed for extinction”) on the fishing industry, climate change, anything but wind turbines (which, it seems, don’t even merit a mention).

    Of course the rope-entangled whale is dreadful, and the Guardian is right to report on such worrying issues. Nevertheless, the extent of the “whataboutery” in the article is really quite remarkable.

    Like

  72. “Defra ‘aims’ to publish UK Whale Death Data – imminently”

    https://jasonendfield.medium.com/defra-aims-to-publish-uk-whale-death-data-imminently-4c6f27bbdc14

    April 2024 – Success: Defra now ‘aims’ to publish the information imminently…
    Now, in an interesting ‘plot twist’, Defra told the ICO that they now ‘aim’ to publish the 2020 report as early as this month (April) and the 2021/2022 figures very soon.

    The ICO report states “Defra aims to publish the annual report for 2020 in April 2024 and the annual reports for 2021 and 2022 in May/June 2024. Each annual report will compare the data output from the previous four-year period to establish whether there have been any significant changes in stranding numbers or likely causes of death.”

    That’s great – although it is actually what the are supposed to do every year anyway….. however Defra’s careful use of language implies that the publication date remains an ‘aim’.
    It doesn’t sound like a promise. But it’s what they told the ICO, so it’s on record. Let’s see if and when it happens….

    Once we have the data, all that remains to be seen is what it tells us. I expect that the number of dead whales, dolphins and porpoises has continued to be unusually high since 2018, and if that’s the case then there will doubtless be significant public debate surrounding the reasons for the massive increase in cetacean deaths. This debate must include (amongst other factors) the potential role of the offshore wind industry in detrimentally affecting the marine environment and the damage that offshore wind turbines might cause to delicate marine ecosystems.

    Watch this space….

    Like

  74. Let no one be misled, there is absolutely no way that the vested interests of the entire offshore wind industry and it’s massive Green support will be thwarted over a few (or even a multitude of) excess cetacean suicides.

    Like

  76. Mark,

    Frankly, I’ve grown weary of ceaseless calls for more evidence connecting animal mortality with wind energy activities and, all the while NOAA authorizes more killing.

    Yep. It’s pretty bloody obvious. NOAA would not be granting licences to wind farm developers to kill or seriously harass these creatures (which in all probability might also result in their deaths after being driven into heavy shipping lanes) if they were not aware of the fact that wind farm surveying, construction and even operation activities can and do result in such lethal outcomes.

    Like

  77. “Newly released data reveals record number of cetacean deaths in UK waters”

    https://jasonendfield.medium.com/newly-released-data-reveals-record-number-of-cetacean-deaths-in-uk-waters-48ce8ebdae40

    After months of asking the UK Department for the Environment, Defra, to share the data for cetacean strandings, at last some information is emerging.

    I’ve been calling on Defra to share the data for some time, and now I’m pleased to see that the 2019 and 2020 reports have been published. At the time of writing this, we are still awaiting the 2021 and 2022 data, but already the figures are terribly alarming and beg many questions.

    3000 Deaths In Just Three Years
    Tragically, more than 1000 whales, dolphins and porpoises were stranded around the UK in 2018 – and it was a similar number the following year with 980 cetaceans reported to the Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme (CSIP) in 2019.

    But in 2020, there was an unprecedented number of cetacean strandings with the highest figures ever recorded in the UK by the CSIP since its inception – a shocking 1102 cetaceans, comprising at least 16 species.

    Even allowing for some animals that were re-floated, it means that more than 3000 whales, dolphins and porpoises perished around the UK’s coast in just three years.

    The extraordinary upward trend in whale, dolphin and porpoise deaths suggests something is very wrong in the seas around Britain.

    Biggest mass stranding event since records began.
    The 2020 figures included a mass stranding of at least seven Sperm Whales in Yorkshire, on the North Sea coast.
    This particular tragedy was the largest sperm whale mass stranding event ever recorded in England since routine recording of strandings began in the UK in 1913.

    Post mortem sampling was carried out on a few of the animals, and there was no sign of recent ship strike or fishing gear entanglement. In addition to this, the whales were thought to be in reasonable nutritional condition.

    What is causing the huge upturn in cetacean deaths around the UK?
    There could be a number of factors of course, there are many theories out there, but at least in the case of the Sperm whales in Yorkshire, we can largely rule out ship strike and entanglement, often casually blamed for the deaths of marine mammals. Whatever your hypothesis, whether you choose to blame climate change, naval sonar, fishing, pollution or plastics, don’t ignore the elephant in the room – industrial offshore wind farms.

    The North Sea – an industrial development zone – at the expense of wildlife?
    There has long been a general denial that offshore wind farms might be associated with the increase in whale deaths, but it should perhaps be noted that the aforementioned Sperm whales were stranded in an area where at least two offshore wind farms were operational at the time of the mass stranding event, both of them within just a few miles of where the whales were found, near the town of Withernsea. Meanwhile, other North Sea wind farm projects were under construction that year and a vast area of the North Sea had by then been designated a ‘development zone’ with further industrial offshore wind projects in the pipeline. Countries bordering the North Sea have hugely ambitious plans to vastly increase offshore wind capacity in the coming years.

    The North Sea is rich in wildlife, but I believe that large areas of important ecosystems are under imminent threat as the industry rapidly expands.

    Any debate over the cause behind the increase in strandings must include public discussion surrounding the rapid expansion of the offshore wind industry and the potential damage being done to marine ecosystems in its wake….

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.