False rumors in the wind

Editor’s note: The following is an article written and reported by the New Bedford Light. We are co-publishing this in-depth piece, which first ran on Feb. 12, with the New Bedford Light’s permission, as we believe it can enlighten our readers on the sprawling and complex story of offshore wind — a massive new industry that is already having a significant impact on the coastline shared by New Bedford, the South Shore, and all of the Cape and islands. 

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 lost not only 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 postmortem 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 were lying in their coverage of the whale death, that NOAA Fisheries and others were 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 No. 5120 and the rope that entangled her 

The right whale that died, No. 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 No. 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. And while the results of a final necropsy are still pending, NOAA officials have confirmed that the rope is consistent with fishing rope used in Maine.

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. 

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, No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 of 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 and 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 the 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 percent 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 percent figure.

However, the 68 percent figure from the report is actually a reference to a 2016 survey of U.K. fishermen. The fishermen were asked, “What is the main negative impact of the [offshore wind farm] on the fishing industry?” — 68 percent 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, N.Y.

Brady was named in a recent report from Brown University, titled “Against the Wind,” which says that several East Coast groups and individuals opposing 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 were presenters 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.

 

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 multimillion-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 country’s 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 roads.

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. 

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 regard 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. 

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.

The story from the New Bedford Light can be found at newbedfordlight.org/false-rumors-in-the-wind.