Green Oceans and Three Tribes Petition NOAA to Revoke Offshore Wind Companies' Authorizations That Harm 61% of the Critically Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales While Building their Projects
In violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Letters of Authorization (LOAs) issued by NOAA allow the offshore wind developers to illegally 'take' or harm an excessive number of marine mammals, including the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW), while building offshore wind projects..
The petition also provides hard evidence connecting the construction of offshore wind projects and the deaths of endangered NARW, of which there are fewer than 350 left and demonstrates that the government's basis for allowing the LOAs relies on incomplete and flawed analysis.
'The collective harm from these projects will be devastating and likely irreversible if they are not stopped,' said Dr. Lisa Quattrocki Knight, co-founder and President of Green Oceans. 'We urge Commerce Secretary Lutnick to look at the previous administration's reckless permitting that threatens the health of our ocean and the animals that live there. The facts speak for themselves: these projects should not be allowed to proceed.'
On an annualized basis, Revolution Wind 'takes' constitute approximately 12% of the NARW population, a figure that the courts and the National Marine Fisheries Service have said exceeds the statutorily allowed 'small numbers.'
Over a five-year period, the combined 'takes' by Revolution, Sunrise, and New England Wind constitute 61% of the NARW population alive today. Whales cannot discern the boundaries between projects so NOAA shouldn't evaluate projects as one-offs in the same general lease area that will engage in construction activities at the same time.
'This is a death sentence for the Right Whales and an egregious violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act,' Dr. Knight said. 'NOAA's Letters of Authorization protect offshore wind investors at the expense of the environment. The law says the exact opposite.'
About Green Oceans
Green Oceans is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, community organization dedicated to combating climate change without jeopardizing the health of the ocean or the life it sustains.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
8 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Crushing Dissent is as American as Protest Itself
The 2020s have so far been an incredibly hostile era to protest in the United States. The latter stages of the first Trump Administration witnessed police backlash to peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstrations and during Joe Biden's presidency, thousands of pro-Palestine student activists across the country suffered police violence and arrest. Trump's second term has unleashed a torrent of assaults on protest and dissent, from revoking visas and disappearing activists, to withholding federal funds from universities that won't dismantle diversity initiatives. These attacks on political expression strike at the heart of American democratic principles. Not only does the Constitution protect free speech, the nation's founding history also seemingly legitimizes the right to protest. The United States is, after all, a country born of dissent. As a result of that history, those rights and freedoms were enshrined into the very first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Or so the story goes. While American history is full of those claiming the Revolutionary right to resist, it is also full of officials fighting to shut them down. The historical record demonstrates that since the dawn of the republic, the right to protest has been challenged and contested by those in power. Recognizing this legacy is critical as the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence approaches in 2026. To many early Americans, particularly those within the Washington and Adams administrations, self-government rendered popular protest illegitimate and obsolete. While dissent may have been required to protect colonial liberties under British imperialism, Americans now governed themselves. Samuel Adams, a former Patriot leader, declared that while protest had 'served an excellent purpose' during the Revolution, 'as we now have constitutional and regular governments and all our men in authority depend on upon the annual, free elections of the people, we are safe without [it].' As Adams viewed it, to resist government power was to oppose the will of the majority, which was, in essence, to trample upon the Revolution's achievements and instead embrace tyranny. Discontented citizens should wait for recourse at the next election. Until then, they should keep quiet. The Whiskey Rebellion, a 1794 tax resistance in western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland, offered the first opportunity for a strong state crackdown on popular dissent. The 'whiskey rebels,' as the activists' critics referred to them, drew upon the tactics, rhetoric, and ideologies of the American Revolution and earlier protest movements to oppose a new tax on whiskey that disproportionately burdened the western economy. These frontiersmen organized committees of noncompliance, circulated petitions, raised liberty poles, and terrorized local tax officials to pressure for repeal. They claimed to defend the spirit of 1776 by resisting an unjust tax, just as the Patriots had done under the British. But those in power refuted these links and instead emphasized the disloyalty and illegitimacy of disobeying the will of the majority. 'They quarrel with a constitution and government purchased at the expense of much blood and treasure, and framed by themselves,' proclaimed the Pennsylvania Chief Justice. 'They despise the rulers of their own choice, and trample on laws of their own making.' The Washington Administration came down hard on the whiskey rebels. The president led 15,000 federalized militiamen from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into the west—though no rebel army materialized to oppose them. Still, federal forces arrested hundreds of activists, some on charges of treason. Although Washington ultimately chose to pardon everyone involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, the government had proved its point; it would not allow such displays of opposition. President John Adams used the same playbook when another tax resistance in Pennsylvania broke out during his term. In 1799, citizens in the eastern part of the state organized to resist a new property tax that unfairly targeted farmers over land speculators. The tax imposed higher rates for those who improved their holdings, building houses and clearing farmland, and lower rates for those who merely held onto their plots as an investment. Once the Adams Administration threatened to send in troops, protestors quickly backed down and promised to obey the law. Nevertheless, Adams followed through and nearly 3,000 men marched on eastern Pennsylvania, despite the residents having already acquiesced to the law. 'Government should not cringe,' declared one official in justification of the mission. Clearly, this show of federal strength was not about enforcing law and order; it was intended to prevent future protests by sending a clear message to those who had dissented. The Adams Administration also used legislation to try to silence its critics. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Law, which made it a federal crime to state or print criticism of the government. They used this law primarily to imprison newspaper editors loyal to the opposition party, but also occasionally employed it to punish protestors. For instance, federal authorities used it to arrest and charge two activists in Dedham, Massachusetts for raising a liberty pole criticizing the Adams Administration's policies. One of them, despite not even being present on the day of the pole-raising, received the harshest sentence issued under the Sedition Law: a $480 fine and eighteen months imprisonment. He ended up serving two years because he could not afford the fine. One can, of course, look beyond the founding period to find other examples of state repression of dissent. Government officials and police have attempted to muzzle activists fighting for every progressive cause in the nation's history: abolition, Indigenous rights, suffrage, feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, Black civil rights, environmentalism, and so on. Perhaps we should understand the Revolution nearly 250 years ago not as the birth of an American protest tradition, but as the origin of its potential demise. In the early years of the republic, a tradition of repressing dissent arose alongside dissent itself. In that sense, those who appeal to founding principles to counter recent authoritarian tactics are on a fool's errand. As Americans today courageously rise to protest, they are engaging in a 250-year-old battle pitting the people against a state that may wish to silence them. Shira Lurie is the author of The American Liberty Pole: Popular Politics and the Struggle for American Democracy in the Early Republic and the Special Series Editor for the 'Road to 250.' The Road to 250 series is a collaboration between Made by History and Historians for 2026, a group of early Americanists devoted to shaping an accurate, inclusive, and just public memory of the American Founding for the upcoming 250th anniversary. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
E&E News
a day ago
- E&E News
5 things to know about Trump's attacks on the Montreal Protocol
As treaties go, the Montreal Protocol is often considered one of the most successful. But the United States' continued participation in the 1987 agreement to save the ozone layer is suddenly in question. President Donald Trump's proposed rescission package calls for eliminating funding to the Montreal Protocol, as part of a plan to claw back $437 million appropriated for international organizations and programs during the Biden administration. Advertisement The potential funding cuts coincide with a previously scheduled meeting next week in which treaty members will discuss technical aspects of the agreement. The U.S. has not confirmed whether it will attend, potentially escalating the Trump administration's policy of snubbing global environmental conferences. The White House directed questions to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. Proponents say there is little question that the Montreal Protocol benefits America by creating new markets for U.S. goods and protecting people from the sun's harmful radiation. The treaty has cut pollutants that burn holes in the ozone layer and contribute to planetary warming. It is supported by every country — and American businesses, environmentalists and both political parties. But budget cuts that would deprive the treaty of funding — along with agencies like NOAA and NASA that help monitor whether countries are adhering to its provisions — could affect how well the treaty operates, experts argue. 'You need a monitoring network like we have, and improvements to it, to have the confidence that everybody's playing by the rules,' said David Doniger, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If the U.S. budget cuts were to threaten this network, it would be to our detriment.' Here are five things to know about the Montreal Protocol and how Trump's proposals could harm it. What is it? The 38-year-old agreement is the first United Nations treaty to achieve universal ratification, joined by 197 countries. Then-President Ronald Reagan called it 'a model of cooperation' after signing it in 1988. It helps to protect the ozone layer through binding commitments to eliminate the production and use of ozone-depleting chemicals once commonly found in refrigerators, air conditioners and aerosol sprays. Unlike other climate pacts, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Montreal Protocol requires countries to reduce pollution and restrict trade with nations that fail to meet the treaty's goals. 'It says these gases are bad, you shall not make them,' said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a nonprofit that focuses on cutting short-lived climate pollutants. The protocol has a financial mechanism called the Multilateral Fund that helps poorer countries meet their commitments to phase out harmful chemicals. It's funded through contributions from the U.S. and other developed countries. What has the Montreal Protocol achieved? It has helped curb dozens of chemicals that degrade the ozone layer, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Many of the chemicals trap heat, so the treaty has also been a successful climate pact. The 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol goes further by targeting a class of coolants known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. They were meant to replace CFCs because they don't have an ozone effect, but HFCs were found to be far worse for the climate than carbon dioxide. Scientists say the Montreal Protocol will prevent as much as 2.5 degrees of additional warming by the end of this century, with Kigali adding benefits. It has also helped protect forests and other ecosystems that suck up planet-warming carbon dioxide, making the ozone treaty a vital tool in combating climate change. 'It's been the most effective international mechanism by which we've avoided egregious human health impacts in the form of skin cancer [and] cataracts' but also the consequences of warming such as intensifying wildfires, hurricanes and droughts, said Richie Kaur, an advocate for superpollutant reduction at NRDC. Why has it earned bipartisan backing? Short answer: It's good for business. In 2020, during Trump's first term, Congress passed the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, or AIM, which mandates the phasedown of HFCs and brings the U.S. in line with the climate goals of the Kigali Amendment. Two years later, President Joe Biden ratified Kigali with approval from the Senate, making the U.S. the 138th country to sign on. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was a leader in advancing those policies. 'Our message was that business is working on the transition, it's going to benefit the economy, it's going to open up access to markets, level the playing field for U.S. participation in those markets, and the economic story has continued to be a good one,' said Chuck Chaitovitz, vice president of environmental affairs and sustainability at the Chamber. Ratification of Kigali was driven by a rare collaboration between industry and environmental organizations. It was also pushed forward by a bipartisan group of senators who argued that ratifying it would 'help secure America's place as a global leader' in manufacturing by offering U.S. products an advantage in global markets. Is the treaty under threat? It's unlikely that the U.S. would withdraw from the Montreal Protocol, in part because it could hurt American businesses. The White House fiscal 2026 budget request for EPA would continue support for provisions of the Clean Air Act and the AIM Act that address domestic obligations to the Montreal Protocol. But cuts to international funding could hobble it. 'The U.S. needs to continue its domestic implementation programs as well as their support for the international process,' said Kevin Fay, executive director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an industry coalition. 'And a key part of that international support is helping to promote U.S. technology and U.S. industry and jobs around the globe.' U.S. contributions to the treaty's multilateral fund help other countries meet their obligations under the Montreal Protocol. And when a country like India looks for air conditioners that are made without harmful chemicals, they often buy American-made products. 'The multilateral fund is critical to creating markets in developing countries for U.S. products,' said Josh Klein, a former senior Democratic staffer for international environmental policy on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While the U.S. isn't the only country that contributes money to the fund, it has provided roughly a quarter of all funding since its establishment in 1991. The U.S. also offers experts to the protocol's scientific advisory panel. Staffing cuts at NOAA and NASA could affect that work. What's next? Officials from around the world will gather next week in Bangkok for a regular meeting to discuss issues that underpin the treaty, including funding and atmospheric monitoring. The State Department wouldn't confirm whether the U.S. was sending a delegation. A State-led review of whether the U.S. should withdraw from certain international organizations and treaties is expected in early August. The Montreal Protocol is likely to survive because of its popularity among business groups, but the president's planned budget cuts could degrade its ability to function, advocates said. 'We do know that it's up to Congress whether to approve these things, whether it's in the form of rescissions this year or the budget request for next year,' said Doniger, of NRDC. In the past when deep cuts have loomed over NOAA and NASA, they have been rejected by Congress. 'We're hoping that happens again,' Doniger added.
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
New NOAA document spells out further deep Trump cuts
A new NOAA document sheds further light on the Trump administration's proposed cuts and changes for the weather and climate agency. Why it matters: The proposed budget would gut federal climate research efforts and spending at a critical moment in the fight to understand and address human-driven climate change. Driving the news: Most notably, the proposal would eliminate NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which performs and coordinates climate research. Some of OAR's functions would be transferred to the National Weather Service, but others would be cancelled. "The FY 2026 budget eliminates all funding for climate, weather, and ocean Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes," reads the document. "It also does not fund Regional Climate Data and Information, Climate Competitive Research, the National Sea Grant College Program, Sea Grant Aquaculture Research, or the National Oceanographic Partnership Program." Zoom in: NOAA would also "no longer support climate research grants," the proposal adds. What they're saying: " With that statement, the administration signals its intent to have NOAA, arguably the world's leading oceanic and atmospheric governmental organization, completely abandon climate science," writes meteorologist and former NOAA official Alan Gerard. The big picture: The new details come amid broader Trump administration efforts to slash federal spending on climate research, renewable energy subsidies, electric cars and other fields and technologies widely seen as necessary to our understanding of — and adaptation to — climate change. The budget would also shutter Hawai'i's Mauna Loa laboratory, CNN notes, where decades of atmospheric CO2 measurements have shown evidence of anthropogenic climate change. NOAA referred questions to the White House, which didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
