Wind power and marine life

Everyone acknowledges the recent whale deaths in Rhode Island and Connecticut are tragic. Regardless of the cause of death in these majestic animals, their loss represents a setback in our efforts to protect marine life and endangered species.

Saturday’s reporting in The Providence Journal (“No link between whale death, wind farm, experts say,” News, March 2) continues the one-sided conversation that seeks to obscure the possible connection of these recent whale deaths, and the more than 80 in the past 14 months, to the development of offshore wind power. The conversation relies on expert sources with a clear conflict of interest and continues to be clouded by accusations directed at the anti-wind environmental community. This includes my organization, Green Oceans.

Since our start, members have researched offshore wind to educate our neighbors on the science, government documentation and evidence available regarding the potential impact on marine ecosystems. The detail uncovered, including much that we reference publicly, should trigger further investigation and provide a clear indication to the media that more than one valid perspective exists.

We will not ignore the deaths of these whales. The future of their species, and our planet, depends on this valuable work. We hope the government and the offshore wind industry will acknowledge the potential impacts offshore wind will have on marine environments and will continue to question the majority opinion. Science has never advanced by accepting consensus beliefs. Truth comes through asking questions. We also request that the media acknowledge and respect other valid viewpoints and adopt a more balanced approach.

Elizabeth (Lisa) Quattrocki Knight, co-founder and president, Green Oceans

Reporter Alex Kuffner responds: Preliminary results from a necropsy performed on the emaciated fin whale that was stranded last week in South Kingstown found it to have a brain infection and parasites in the kidneys.

University of Rhode Island scientists are not the only experts who say there is no evidence that offshore wind is harming whales. Bioacoustics scientists and marine mammal biologists with Cornell University, Duke University, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other institutions have also been quoted in the media saying there is no evidence of a link.

Enough talk — just replace the bridge

Why are we wasting so much time pointing fingers, asking what did they know and when? Bottom line is that the westbound side of the Washington Bridge needs to be replaced. Period. To try to repair it is a fool’s errand and only throwing good money after bad. Meanwhile, the load on the eastbound side is being doubled.

Let’s just do it. We have reputable engineering and technical schools in this state as well as the Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a plan for replacement. All this procrastination is just lining a few more pockets.

Lorraine Lombardi, Narragansett

Let the facts guide us on wind farms

I write today to add my voice in full support of University of Rhode Island marine mammal biologist Robert Kenney’s stand on whale deaths and offshore wind farms (“No link between whale death, wind farm, experts say,” News, March 2).

Claims that wind farms cause harm to our marine wildlife unfoundedly stoke public fear and hinder our progress in the face of a looming threat: climate change. While oil spills, plastic pollution and chemical runoff wreak constant havoc on our oceans, the blame is conveniently shifted to renewable energy projects that play a critical role in limiting carbon emissions. Let us not forget that the cause of these speculations is noise from construction activities, not the wind farms themselves; activities that are continually monitored and controlled to prevent unnecessary harm to marine life.

Misinformation has the power to impede the transformative shift we desperately need in our energy sector. We must be guided by science, facts and evidence, not fear and speculation, as we make the decisions that will impact our planet and future generations. In times of urgent need for climate action, let’s prioritize our efforts toward constructive actions to mitigate this existential threat, instead of pointing our fingers at solutions that hold promise of a sustainable future.

Remember, the time to act on climate change was yesterday. Every step toward renewable energy is a step toward hope. Stifling these steps with baseless accusations is not a luxury we can afford.

Laurie Woodward García, Pawtucket

Freedom from gunfire in the classroom

Please raise your hand if you think Rhode Island children hearing gunfire while in school is a good thing. Most reasonable people think not.

House Bill H 7051, introduced by Rep. Brandon Potter, went before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill provides children in Rhode Island an educational environment conducive to learning. It puts a stop to children doing mass shooting drills with a bombardment of gunfire outside the classroom door. It stops deafening noise pollution.

If you believe that children in Rhode Island deserve a learning environment free of gunfire, make your voice heard. Contact every member of the House Judiciary Committee (https://bit.ly/RI-House-JC) and demand they move bill H 7051 forward for a full House vote.

Martha DiMeo, Cranston

Working group ignored plight of state retirees

When House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi last year shut down all bills that would have provided recompense for the victims of the 2011 pension reform heist orchestrated by his mentor, Gina Raimondo (who cleverly tap-danced her way to stardom using financial sleight of hand disguised as an extreme fiscal crisis), he used as his cover the creation of a “Working Group” set up to “review the impacts of the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act of 2011” (RIRSA). If any who were burned by RIRSA were suspicious of the Working Group, considering it nothing more than plausible deniability for the speaker and continued protection of the spurious legacy of his mentor, they were not disappointed.

In the final report recently issued by this group, they claimed to be handing over financial impact information, but doing so with neither opinion nor recommendation. Yet that was belied by the public remarks made earlier by a Working Group member who stated that greater consideration would be given to one affected group over another and who went on to state that: “We cannot go back to the status quo on 3% annual compounded pensions. It’s unfair for anyone to advocate for that without thinking it’s going to destroy the pension system as a whole.” Ironically, those statements were made without benefit of having even reviewed any of the impacts.

It seems that the Working Group was unaware that 2011 pre-RIRSA retirees actually had a contract that was broken, and that laws in place to protect them were ignored by the General Assembly. Had the Working Group known that, they wouldn’t have opined in their report that the legitimating COLA restoration for preRIRSA retirees would be at the expense of any other group of retirees but merely a following of the law that should have happened in 2011 and was well overdue.

Patricia Giammarco, North Providence