The federal government is now saying that pile driving for the Vineyard Wind project is likely to have an adverse impact on marine life, although it won’t be a detriment to the population of the endangered North Atlantic right whales.
An announcement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in late August reads that the agency concluded the proposed pile driving for the installation of 15 remaining monopiles will “adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence” of whales, sea turtles, or fish listed in the Endangered Species Act.
“It will have no effect on any designated critical habitat,” the announcement reads. “NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate serious injuries to or mortalities of any Endangered Species Act listed whale including the North Atlantic right whale.”
The full biological opinion by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is not publicly available yet. NOAA spokesperson Andrea Gomez told the Times on Tuesday the new opinion will be available on the agency’s library website “any day now.”
“This Opinion includes an Incidental Take Statement, which provides an exemption from the ESA’s prohibition on take of ESA-listed species,” Gomez, quoted by the State House News Service, said. “It identifies the number of whales and sea turtles that we expect to be harmed … and temporarily harassed by pile driving noise, the number of sea turtles we expect to be hit by project vessels and injured or killed, and the number of sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon we expect to be captured and released alive and without injury during trawl surveys that will be carried out to assess impacts to fisheries resources in the area. It also includes mandatory measures for minimizing, monitoring, and reporting those effects.”
The recent announcement places emphasis on the right whale, a critically endangered species with only around 360 remaining today.
NOAA states the Vineyard Wind project includes measures to “minimize, monitor, and report effects to ESA listed species.”
“With the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, all effects to North Atlantic right whales will be limited to temporary behavioral disturbance,” the announcement states.
This opinion replaces a “biological opinion” from 2021. The new opinion was determined after consultation was initiated by NOAA earlier this spring to consider the effects of a new Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Harassment Authorization, which would “authorize take of a small number of marine mammals” from the pile driving noises of the Vineyard Wind project’s second phase. Take is defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal,” although NOAA places varying levels of what is allowed per different species.
The biological opinion “considers the effects on threatened and endangered species of the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the project off the coast of Massachusetts” per the Endangered Species Act, the announcement reads. The newly issued opinion replaces the one issued by NOAA in 2021.
The new agency opinion follows a Vineyard Wind turbine blade broke in July. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had requested an emergency section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries, which is done when any action carried out, funded, or authorized by a federal agency may affect threatened or endangered species. The consultation is ongoing and will be done once “emergency response actions” are completed.
NOAA should consider the loss of the North Atlantic endangered Right Whales beyond the Vineyard Wind OSW install. Our MA Governor is granting 10 OSW developers permission to install 1000 turbines covering 1,000,000 acres just off the coast of the Vineyard in the whale migration path.
Can you show us your source for your claim of 1000 windmills I’ve 1,000,000 sq acres?
Jim– Susan has no source other than “trust me bro”
Actually, I can cite a source that proves her wrong.
It’s called “elementary geometry” that most of us
learned before we got into high school.
The formula to figure out the area of a circle
is Pi R squared
where “R” is the radius.
So, a circle with a diameter of 25 ft, which the towers are
Has a radius of 12.5 ft
So 12.5 times 12.5 equals 156 —
then there is the tricky part, multiplying that number
by 3.14— that is the rounding of the mathematical
constant calle “Pi”
so back to the towers– 12.5 times 12.5 times 3.14
equals 490 square ft.
that’s it for what each tower actually takes op
multiply the 62 towers for VW 1 and we get a total
of 30,414.75 square ft for the whole project
throw in another 10,000 square ft for the transfer platform,
and we are still under one acre.
And we now know that lots of fishing boats can go there
all at once since last week there was an article about
dozens of fishing boats and others playing ring around
the rosie with only one tower and no one ran into it.
or another boat.
Putting up a big number, like a million impresses some
people. Who would care if they knew that only 1 acre
of ocean seafloor and surface were affected ?
How is the Massachusetts government approving anything in Federal waters and in areas the federal government put out for lease because the wind conditions are ideal for wind energy production there?
The conspiracy nuts will have a great time with this news. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel companies will continue to spread misinformation at every opportunity
Tell the governor to cease and desist!
The PBR (potential biological removal) for the North American Right Whale is 0.7% annually.
That means 1 NARW mortality per year is over the threshold that will allow the species to recover.
That PBR value was calculated before all these OSW leased sites were approved.
Now NOAA is saying about Mono pile driving noise “it won’t be a detriment to the population” , how could it NOT?
These sites up and down the coast are directly in the migratory path, general habitat, feeding grounds, calving grounds…. The added vessel traffic alone is a considerable threat.
These NARW have an auditory range of 90 miles. We humans could hear and feel the Mono pile driving a couple weeks ago on land some 20+ miles away, imagine what they felt underwater! These creatures are going to more than “adversely affected” and could end up being the final nail in the NARW species coffin.
I sure hope I am wrong about all of it!
NOAA claims in the article that pile driving is NOT detrimental to the whales!
What do you know? Pile driving can be detrimental !
So can oil spills, mountain topping for coal and dumping the tailings
into rivers and streams–so can discharging radioactive water
into bays. The point is that EVERY way that we produce electricity
has an environmental impact.
Conservation is a reasonable “alternative” –but I see on the
national level, resistance from a certain political party to any
governmental efforts to reduce our demand.
A few radical liberals taking cold showers and living in the
dark is not the answer– There are many more radical
“conservatives” out there who could not care less if their
great grandchildren died in fires or floods or droughts
or that the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere will decrease
and they suffocated. As one 80 year old commenter here indicated,
he will be dead and in heaven before all this happens, so it
doesn’t matter at all. It may not matter To him, but it matters to me.
So if all energy production is bad for the environment then why not choose the most economical production. It sounds to me like you just said the quiet part out loud. The greenies want to line their pockets now instead of the fossil fuel team. But I agree nothing wrong with conservation and the pie is big enough that everyone can eat. Competition breeds efficiency and pigs go to slaughter.
Carl.. yes, all means of producing electricity are damaging
to the environment. But some are more damaging than others.
Cost effectiveness is a secondary consideration as far as I am concerned.
The true costs of anything is not taken into consideration.
Let’s say for example that coal is the cheapest way to produce
electricity. Sure– it probably is if there are no restrictions
on how many mountain tops they can flatten, how many streams and
rivers they pollute and how much smoke they can put into the air.
imagine how cheap it could be if they could just dump everything into
the rivers. If you didn’t take the economic consequences of
killing every living thing in the Mississippi river, it would be really cheap. .
Look at the air pollution in Pittsburgh in the mid 1900’s or the economic
consequences of melting bridges along the Cuyahoga river.
Somewhere along the line, we will factor the costs of
extreme weather and respiratory diseases caused by
the burning of fossil fuels.
into the equation. Until then, oil appears cheap.
It’s like eating bacon and sausage egg McMuffins every morning for breakfast, double cheeseburgers supersized fries and a milkshake \every day for lunch and KFC chicken for dinner with a 6 pack of coke.
Yeah– it’s cheap— but then it catches up with you.
Fortunately for those people, Obama care will cover the ridiculous
medical costs of their diabetes treatments.
But you and I are actually paying for it,
just as we are paying the cost for the weather disasters that are caused
by “cheap” oil.
Don,
Really? So you are stating that there are no clean burning coal technologies, that technology hasn’t improved in extracting fossil fuels to mitigate atrocities to the environment? It’s not 1900 and we have regulations to prevent such illegal dumping. You are grossly exaggerating the issues associated with coal and fossil fuel. You can’t heat your home with wood and then claim superiority on the environment. You tripped up saying that all forms of making electricity is bad for the environment and exposed the green new deal for what it is, a transfer of wealth.
Carl– I am stating that there is no way to burn coal “cleanly”
Just start with the “mining” procedure.
You take a pristine environment and clear cut everything, pull out what you want, put it in “Mr.Peabody’s coal train, throw the tailings
into he nearest stream, and move on to the next
Have you ever heard of “black lung disease” ?
Who pays for their medical care ? And they are Americans–
born and bred right in the mountains that used to be there.
And then you burn it. yeah, the coal industry
was dragged kicking and screaming into complying
with expensive environmental rules that are reflecting the true
costs — read my comment– and rightfully and justifiably
making it less economically competitive– and if you don’t think
the coal industry gets our tax monies in the form of
subsidies, you aren’t even trying to pay attention to the
realities of energy economics.
My father used to say that nuclear energy would be
“too cheap to meter”. Yeah, he was probably right, until
the environmentalists pushed some safety measures through
and made it so expensive that it is not
competitive either.
In both cases, Carl, the true cost to produce electricity
cleanly and safely were taken into consideration.
That is not the case with oil.
The oil companies ( through us) use the atmosphere as a
dump for the waste. In the 50’s, Campbells soup–with
their plant i in Camden New Jersey, polluted the Delaware
river from Philadelphia to Cape may, and killed nearly every fish in it.
Some people wanted to fish in the river,,swim in it, drink
the water from
it and not be subject to the stench every time the wind blew
their way. So the company had to have a little “transfer of wealth ”
by making the cost of the soup grandma
was making more competitive with the canned soup
Campbells was making , by taking into account the river.
It cost the “Soup barons” a lot of money, but you can fish
in the Delaware river today and even eat the fish.
Was/ is that a bad thing ?
All I am saying, Carl, is that the true cost of producing
electricity needs to be taken into account. Regardless of the source. And that includes mining of minerals, and the cost of
decommissioning at the end of life of facilities.
You might notice for instance that the decommissioning
cost (much of which is being borne by taxpayers) for
the Plymouth nuclear plant are higher than the cost to
install VW 1 —
And in case you are wondering, VW 1 consist of 385,000
tons of 100 % recyclable steel towers that has a current scrap value
worth over 66 million dollars at today’s prices.
How much of the Pilgrim plant is going to be recycled ?
How much will future generations pay to keep the spent fuel
safe from terrorist or accidents ?
I can also assure you that all the blades VW 1 will ever
produce will be a tiny fraction of the waste from
Pilgrim nuclear, or the Sagamore oil/ gas burner.
And if we really can’t figure out anything to do with blades
other than burry them, we can build schools, playgrounds and parks on top of them.
The cradle to grave costs concept that Anna points
out is pretty reasonable if you take anything
into account other than how much it costs today.
I have grandchildren that I care about.
Carl, the transfer of wealth is from the billionaire oil barons to each individual family. As soon as each roof has solar panels and has disconnected from the grid, there will be about $1-2 trillion per year that will revert back to individual families in the US.
Exactly. Finally someone got this right.
I am dumbfounded when commenters say, Do you prefer oil spills?
Huh?
No, I don’t like oil spills, but I do like adequate, reliable electric power and other energy. Energy-dense fuels such as oil do live up to the job description of supplying reliable energy and power.
“Green” energy sources don’t come close to living up to the job description of supplying reliable energy, plus, being diffuse, they take up a huge amount of space, and in other ways, too, negatively impacting air, earth, and ocean, and create their own forms of pollution and environmental hazard.
Can you do the arithmetic?
Reliable energy + environmental trade-offs
vs.
Unreliable energy + environmental tradeoffs.
Intermittent “green” energy is not suitable for supplying a national grid.
We need to pivot to green microgrids, and cross off gigantic energy- and maintenance-intensive OSW as a monumental mistake. I would like to see an accounting of the total cost, in US$, of the response to the blade dysfunction event.
The monuments might soon be at the bottom of the sea.
Although, much to the disgust of climate alarmists, there are currently no serious fall storms on the horizon: “AccuWeather is reducing its projected number of named storms during the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season following an “unusual” August with low tropical activity.”
Katherine– can you give us a link to that accuweather
prediction ?
I looked at the NHC site, and it seems they haven’t altered their
forecast that was issued on August 8.
I’ll trust accuweather to tell me about the weather 3 days from now,
But I’m sticking with the NHC for hurricane information.
Let me point out , by the way, that the first day of fall is 12 days away,
And in case you aren’t paying attention, which you obviously aren’t,
Tropical storm Francine is predicted
to become a hurricane sometime tonight or early
tomorrow morning .It is experiencing rapid intensification
that has a possibility to make it a major
hurricane before it makes landfall on the Texas or Louisiana
coast on Wednesday night.
There are 2 other tropical disturbances in the Atlantic basin that have
a 60% chance of becoming cyclones within the next 7 days.
I care the people of Texas and Louisiana.
And where do you come off implying that “climate alarmist”
are disgusted that there are no storms on the
horizon. There is of course , something very disgusting in that
statement , but it is not coming from “climate alarmists”.
Shame on you for trying to divide us with such a
disgusting, untrue and ignorant statement.
Katherine–I forgot to put the link from the NHC
into my comment.
I sure you won’t take my word for it about the current
storms.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Carl, wind power and solar power is wonderful for the environment.
Wind and solar energy is so efficient that the oil barons are shaking in their boots.
Solar is so efficient that solar on every roof pays for itself in about 3 years.
Wind is so efficient that it pays for itself in a few months.
Maybe I will buy a big windmill for my backyard. They’re only a few million dollars and then I can share with the neighbors.
Vote against the conservative oil barons.
We need to see true comparisons between all different kinds of energy production options, apples-to-apples and cradle-to-cradle.
I’m talking about the need for us to understand the whole profile: safety, price, reliability, environmental impact, pollution social justice, rare resources, recycling, nuisance, etc.
I predict that the winner from all points of view would be solar energy – solar thermal and PV, plus batteries and heat storage. if not yet, then certainly within 5 years.
I would be grateful if others could help find that information. Only then can we have informed opinions, and only then can we make wise choices.
Wind has no fuel cost.
I, too, would love to know the full truth about that.
If it is indeed as loud as has been reported, then I am 100% certain that it causes immense suffering for all sea creatures with ability to hear. Especially whales, who sing to eachother across vast distances.
And when they find that it stresses the whales so much that they are forced to change their seasonal migration routes, then I predict this will be the death knell for OSW – especially since solar energy is fast becoming the best option among all the various energy choices.
In the meantime, I predict OSW will soon be strangled economically, because of the immense cost of maintenance: dangerous work, increasing insurance requirement, costly unreliable servicing-ships, etc, etc.
And if these factors are unavoidable conseqence of Off-Shore-Wind, then I predict that wind will be dead within 5 years.
I believe that solar energy can do 95% of it all, even the longest train and the biggest industry, machinery and vehicles. It’s a race for the best, the most reliable, least harmful and least costly!
What is the impact on whales from oil drilling and fracking?
If the agency that receives 6 billion plus in funding from the administration that promotes and actually mandates wind power tells me no endangered species are threatened, well that’s good enough for me
My belief is that we can trust absolutely nothing that the government tells us. There’s way too much corporate influence pressing for what’s most profitable for them.
Anna, the KKK has a stated message of, “don’t trust the government, trust us (the KKK) to save you.”
See the book, “White Robes and Broken Badges.”
The KKK organized the rally, “Unite the Right.”
The conservative movement is in a very bad place.
How was this not considered before permits to install? Wind power is a great idea, until realities are taken into consideration. Our President was proud to announce that 1 million homes equivalent will benefit from offshore wind. The United states alone has 110 million homes – and the wind power cannot be saved and so fossil fuels are still required. It is a very sad thing we are doing to our planet – We try, but it does not always work.
Frank, wind power is saved every day.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/california-battery-plant-is-among-worlds-largest-power-storage-booms-2024-04-12/
Frank– note the pie chart on this site.
https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/overview
4.1 % of the power produced for new england was
“hydro and pumped storage. on Saturday morning.Sept 7
How about this ?
https://newatlas.com/energy/baromar-compressed-air-underwater/
or this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKRIVzIwvtE
This one is about 14 minutes long for those who are more
interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXo66rawpHQ
How about making hydrogen out of sea water ?
Also– All those electric cars have batteries that could be
charged in off peak hours, and some of it could go back into
the grid. For example, a Tesla with a 300 mile range could get
fully charged between 1 and 5 am, by a windmill then discharge some of that power
back into the grid between peak demand hours 6am to 9am
and still have plenty of juice left for the 10 mile commute to work.
And you know that the generating capacity has to be there to meet peak
demand. Reliably reducing the need to burn
fossil fuels during those time does actually matter.
And it works…
Don, using electric cars to balance the grid is brilliant!
Mary– Thanks for the compliment but it’s not brilliant.
it’s a no brainer, and it’s not an original idea from me.
By no means an expert here, but it’s pretty reasonable to assume that fossil-fuel resulting climate change will take out the whales too….
No, it is not reasonable to assume that.
NARWs seem to have been changing their feeding patterns and migration routes, etc., such that they spend a lot of time in northeast OSW lease areas. This in itself may well be a response to climate change.
Living things can adapt within a generation to some changing circumstances—such as, search out a better feeding ground—but not to a factor that would require structural changes in an organ such as the ear.
Common sense: Humans can be driven crazy by the application of sound. This is well documented and has been used by various swat teams, etc. Whales are more dependent on sound for orientation and communication than humans; hence whales, dolphins, etc. have more sensitive auditory systems than humans and most other land-based mammals. Sound travels farther and more efficiently in water than in air. Hence it is very likely the pile driving is extremely disruptive to whales and possibly damaging to their ears. Esp. since the source of obnoxious sound is unknown to a whale.
And, just like humans, whales need sleep to survive.
so – you’re stating that climate change is no threat to animal species as a whole, or just not to the whales ?
I did not state that.
I think my writing is quite clear.
It was a response to a specific comment
Your own sentence and meaning is murky.
You appear to be ignorant of the fact that whales are an apex species, and all that this implies. Quite apart from whales’ right to live.
Please state in clear English what YOU think about the impacts of putative climate change on various marine species and of the human activities intended to try to control it.
I look forward to learning your opinion.
Katherine– I have been in some big cities.
I actually managed to sleep despite the continuous
ambient noise, frequent emergency sirens and
frequent jets flying overhead.
I grew up in southern New Jersey, within 5 miles of
Philadelphia and 1 mile from the NJ turnpike.
I had no idea that there were quiet places in the world.
Until I left.
And sorry, Katherine– it is quite reasonable to assume
that a significant rise in the temperature and acidity of the ocean
will have consequences resulting in the deaths of whales
and many other marine species.
How about you tell me about how it won’t ?
Don – you and I have had differences of opinion on OSW but I will say I agree with your comment here 100% , it’s spot ON!
You know when Kim Kardashian flies to Paris to get her favorite cheesecake, then flies back , then we have a country of wasteful Energy users.
Giant homes that are heated,cooled(rarely used), massive pools , jet setting… The list goes on and on and we’re all guilty on some level.
There’s always someone’s back yard that’s affected by these demands, we’re now it.
I just really hope any impact is minimal. I’m skeptical and hopeful at the same time.
If that makes sense?
Jason, I’m not kidding about electricity being nearly free. Put a 13k solar system on your house. If that isn’t enough, add more batteries. How would your life change if the amount you spent on fossil fuels for the next two years paid for a solar system that would last The Rest of Your Life?
And once you have a lovely solar system on your house you can:
Air condition until you’re freezing
Run a massive pool
Leave your lights on until it looks like a Christmas 🎄 tree
All FREE!
Mary, is your place off grid?
What was your system cost?
Jason– I have to say that when it comes to the anti-windmill crowd,
your comments make the most sense most
of the time. Just like the one I am responding to.
Mary- I admire your ability in putting so much faith in this statement “it won’t be a detriment to the population of the endangered North American Right Whale ” , that’s an incredibly bold statement, especially when the agency has a history of flip flopping their statements or findings.
Personally, I think NOAA is grasping to do damage control, especially with public opinion starting to change a bit with these projects.
Any agency, stranding group, universities…I’ve researched all say the same thing.
Anthropogenic noise is a threat to many species, even if it’s something minor, like avoidance.
The NARW is extremely sensitive to sound, Mono pile driving noise is listed as one of those anthropogenic noises that could harm them.
I’m sorry but I can’t put my faith in their statement here.
https://mobidrive.com/sharelink/p/5KJvyLsXSgpWdKMavBkco56hj69FFVy3kZHb1mWnVXGn
Thank you for this Jason: “The NARW is extremely sensitive to sound, Mono pile driving noise is listed as one of those anthropogenic noises that could harm them.”
Now we want to know just how loud it is for them, and at what distance they are so bothered by the sound that they feel a need to veer away from their normal routes.
Anna, how many hours of pile driving for each tower?
Please keep in mind the pile driving is a very temporary situation.
Also, oil rigs require pile driving and NOT ONE person on this forum ever worried about whales 🐋 ANYWHERE but here, even though whales swim around.
Mary- instead of in incentiving these OSW companies, the federal government should offer homeowners/landlords the incentivizes first , for solar on every roof. Instead, the federal government has sweetened the deal for OSW to make it a no brainier for these companies to develop and make maximum profits. The decommissioning fees were waived just to draw them in.
Yes , they are private companies putting up private money but they’ve been so enticed to do so.
I’d much rather see every house , creating its own energy, than the privatization of public property and further harming the last pristine environment we have left.
This industrialization off our coast is really just getting started and these sites( as I’ve mentioned) are in some critical habitat areas, especially for the NARW.
I’ve been on the water long enough, to understand that this is going to be a problem, both in the short term and long term.
Once again, I hope I’m wrong.
Jason, you get your wish! The government DOES subsidize solar on every roof! You get 30% back, dollar for dollar.
Please, take advantage and put solar on your roof!
Yeah Jason – I totally agree with you! Thank you for putting it so well!
Jason, the noise they discuss in the study is a very short time period. It’s temporary.
How much sound and for how long? How many turbines per lease field? One right after the other?
How many lease fields?
How often? I imagine the loud sounds are pretty much constant all along the Eastern seaboard. Rapidly and constantly growing fields of wind turbines being installed.
And then, how much vibration do they cause when they are running and revolving at top speed. All those new wind turbine fields! And then, of course, there’s also all the oil drilling, and sonar testing for potential new oil or gas fields, and laying of cables, and industrial fishing machinery, and battleships and sonar weapons testing, and mega commercial shipping. And I even wonder about atmospheric sonic booms penetrating and enlarging under water.
Imagine being one of those whales – and they have no way to plug their ears.
It’s not hard to imagine how this impacts their lives in profound and very detrimental ways.
Pile drivers are also used in drilling for oil
No one here ever complained about that.
Good one Mary!
My chief concern is the potential damage/destruction of sea life. It seems to me that this project was rushed for political reasons—and I say that as a Democrat. I believe that decisions about suppliers, engineers, etc. may have been made hastily without a committee of expert maritime scientists as part of the team, without involving humans that would be affected.
The imperfect quality of work on the windmills is a result of the push to get it done. If we’re going to have wind farms at sea, the best and the brightest should be at the planning table.
Does anyone know how to find out who spearheaded the project?
Also, the best and the brightest looked at wind maps a very long time ago, considered the shallow waters, knew the dangers of using oil, and planned these wind farms. They were at the planning table long before anyone ever knew.
Helen–I am, and I am sure most people are concerned about
the potential damage/destruction of sea life.
Cape Wind originally applied for a permit in 2001 under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 with the US Army Corps of Engineers.
In May of 2005 Cape Wind the Massachusetts Energy Facilities
Siting Board (MEFSB) approved the application to build the wind farm
on Horseshoe shoal off the coast of Cape Cod.
In March 2007, the project received approval from Ian Bowles, the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, as required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).[17]
All necessary state and local pre-construction approvals were obtained by 2009. Major federal approvals were obtained 17 May 2010, with lease details and construction and operation permits to be granted as the project proceeded.
It was eventually abandoned for financial reasons.
VW one was originally permitted in 2019 and underwent
extensive environmental and financial scrutiny before
construction started in in Nov 2021.
How slow do you want them to go ?
Our planet is reeling from a climate crisis.
I personally think 23 years of intense scrutiny and study
of local projects along with 40 years of lessons learned from
global projects is enough time.
As far as the “best and the brightest” being at the planning table,
I suggest you take a little time and go to their offices and meet some of
the people working on this.
You could also look up the credentials and educational
backgrounds of the top engineers, designers and contractors associated
with this.
They ARE the best and the brightest.
The project is “spearheaded’ by Avangrid renewables–
A U.S based company in Orange, Connecticut.
My chief concern is human life. Burning 🔥 fossil fuels causes asthma. Does anyone care?
There are streams and rivers in Pennsylvania near coal mines that are completely devoid of life. No fish. No frogs. Does anyone care?
Comments are closed.