Speaker 1: Today's episode is brought to you by earth Breeze. Earth
Speaker 1: Breeze is an amazing replacement for those big plastic jugs
Speaker 1: of the laundry detergent. They're like dryer sheets, except their
Speaker 1: concentrated laundry detergent. You just fold them up, stick them
Speaker 1: in the washer and that's it, no mess, and your
Speaker 1: clothes come out super clean and smelling.
Speaker 2: Grate.
Speaker 1: Now onto the show.
Speaker 3: The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in the US
Speaker 3: has spurred a huge amount of investment and progress in
Speaker 3: the renewable energy space, and at the same time a
Speaker 3: big uptick in anti renewables activism, especially when it comes
Speaker 3: to offshore wind projects. In a lot of cases, the
Speaker 3: people showing up to fight wind farms, both on land
Speaker 3: and offshore, are the same piece people who were fighting
Speaker 3: them over a decade ago. But there are some new
Speaker 3: groups too, and they're deploying some new tactics, especially around
Speaker 3: conservation and the idea that wind turbines are bad for
Speaker 3: birds and whales. There's no science backing up these claims,
Speaker 3: but that hasn't stopped them from taking hold. Still, it's
Speaker 3: a tricky situation. We're not just talking about fossil fuel
Speaker 3: backed resistance. Here, the groups opposing these projects are not
Speaker 3: just AstroTurf groups. Some of them are real grassroots groups
Speaker 3: comprised of citizens who are genuinely concerned about, for example,
Speaker 3: the fate of the endangered right whale and how offshore
Speaker 3: wind farms might impact it. Many of those groups are
Speaker 3: being co opted and weaponized though, by organizations that have
Speaker 3: spent the past twenty years working to block climate policy.
Speaker 3: And then the whole issue is complicated even further by
Speaker 3: the fact that some of the companies building these wind
Speaker 3: farms either are today or used to be, fossil fuel companies.
Speaker 3: It's complicated, which is why a report out of Brown
Speaker 3: University late last year mapping the groups that are active
Speaker 3: on the east coast of the US was especially helpful.
Speaker 3: That report is called Against the Wind, and it digs
Speaker 3: into the people and organizations who are actively fighting wind energy.
Speaker 3: It looks at how they connect to each other, who's
Speaker 3: funding what, and which talking points seem to be spreading.
Speaker 3: To unpack it all, I've got Isaac Slevin, the lead
Speaker 3: author on the report, with me today. I'm Mimi Westerbilt,
Speaker 3: and this is drilled after the break a deep dive
Speaker 3: on the Fight over Wind. Stay with us.
Speaker 1: Our exclusive sponsor today is earth Breeze Eco Sheets. Sheets
Speaker 1: look just like a dryer sheet, but they're ultra concentrated
Speaker 1: liquidless laundry detergent. It's the best of all worlds. Earth
Speaker 1: Breeze is tough on stains and odors while also being
Speaker 1: kind to the planet and your skin. These tiny sheets
Speaker 1: can stop millions of detergent jugs from entering our ecosystems.
Speaker 1: In fact, five hundred million detergent jugs end up in
Speaker 1: landfills and oceans every single year. Ninety one percent of
Speaker 1: single use plastic does not get recycled, including the stuff
Speaker 1: we put in our recycling bins. Sometimes it's hard to
Speaker 1: avoid single use plastic, but earth Breeze makes it really
Speaker 1: easy to rid your laundry room of this stuff and
Speaker 1: there's no sacrifice involved. My clothes or clean. They smell
Speaker 1: great and I feel like I did something good just
Speaker 1: by doing my laundry. Eco sheets are also dermatologists tested.
Speaker 1: They're hypoallergenic, they're free of bleach and dyes and parabins,
Speaker 1: and they even have a fragrance free option. I love them.
Speaker 1: They make doing laundry just slightly easier too, which is
Speaker 1: always a plus. Right now, my listeners can receive forty
Speaker 1: percent off earth Breeze just by going to earthbreeze dot
Speaker 1: com slash drilled. That's e A R T H B
Speaker 1: R e e ze earthbreeze dot com slash drilled to
Speaker 1: cut out single use plastic in your laundry room and
Speaker 1: claim forty percent off your subscription earthbreeze dot com slash drilled.
Speaker 3: What were you hoping to find when you set out
Speaker 3: for this research?
Speaker 2: So over the last couple years, we've witnessed a huge
Speaker 2: rise in opposition to offshore wind across the East Coast.
Speaker 2: And this isn't the first time that's happened. There was
Speaker 2: a wave of opposition to offshore wind a decade ago.
Speaker 2: There's always been the skeptics about it. But what was
Speaker 2: really interesting about this recent wave is their focus on conservation.
Speaker 2: This isn't your run of the mill climate denial movement
Speaker 2: or climate denial disinformation tactics being employed. These are self
Speaker 2: proclaimed conservationists who are fighting against offshore wind because they
Speaker 2: say that it endangers bird populations and especially that offshore
Speaker 2: wind endangers the right whale which is this rare species
Speaker 2: of whale. Scientific literature says that it does not endanger
Speaker 2: the right whale. And so when we started on this project,
Speaker 2: we wanted to know where all of this is coming from.
Speaker 2: How are these disparate local anti offshore wind groups developing
Speaker 2: such sophisticated political attacks pushing out so much rhetoric and
Speaker 2: information at a time. This projects started looking at specifically
Speaker 2: one group in Little Compton, Rhode Island, called Green Oceans.
Speaker 2: It was a rhetorical analysis of their information and misinformation
Speaker 2: about everything from right whales to the fishing industry, to
Speaker 2: the reliability of the turbines to impacts on national defense.
Speaker 2: And what we found when we were analyzing these rhetorical
Speaker 2: tactics was that they were shared across the movement, and
Speaker 2: not just shared by other anti offshore wind groups in
Speaker 2: Massachusetts and New Jersey, but also shared by climate denial
Speaker 2: groups like the Heartland Institute, like the Committee for a
Speaker 2: Constructive Tomorrow or Sea fact and that was pretty interesting
Speaker 2: and pretty peculiar. So as an aside to that project,
Speaker 2: I began looking at different connections between these grassroots groups
Speaker 2: and those national think tanks, and of course the fossil
Speaker 2: fuel companies and the fossil fuel interests that fund those
Speaker 2: think tanks, And what we ended up with was an
Speaker 2: expansive web of anti offshore wind groups on the ground,
Speaker 2: working with backing from climate denial and right wing think tanks,
Speaker 2: many of which were bankrolled by classic fossil fuel industry
Speaker 2: donors like the Charles Koch Foundation, like the State Policy Network,
Speaker 2: like the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association. So we
Speaker 2: didn't know what we were going to find. We were
Speaker 2: just looking into where all this opposition came from, and
Speaker 2: what we found was a reasonably well organized and extraordinarily
Speaker 2: well connected group of people in think tanks opposing offshore wind.
Speaker 3: We've been tracking these groups a little bit too, and
Speaker 3: one thing that really jumps out is just how much
Speaker 3: these what I like to call lone wolf climate denayer dudes,
Speaker 3: folks like Mark Morano at Sea Fact or Steve molloy
Speaker 3: who works not just for Heartland but also the Competitive
Speaker 3: Enterprise Institute and CATO and really a whole host of
Speaker 3: organizations working against climate policy over the last couple of decades.
Speaker 3: How much guys like that have really jumped into this fight.
Speaker 3: Here's a clip from a little boat ride famed whale
Speaker 3: conservationist Mark Morano took with an anti wind group in
Speaker 3: Rhode Island just to give you a little taste.
Speaker 4: Where same whoa stop?
Speaker 1: When same well?
Speaker 5: Where way well dock w same whoa horsed there this
Speaker 5: message we are here the same the whale. If you
Speaker 5: were a focal fuel project, you would have been shut
Speaker 5: down long ago, as the mortality of wales piling up
Speaker 5: on both pages would have shut you down. For some reason,
Speaker 5: you are politically protected wind mails off shore. I'm protected
Speaker 5: for some reason by the politics of our country. Well
Speaker 5: go war rock.
Speaker 3: Tell me who slash. What is the Caesar Rodney Institute,
Speaker 3: and then what is their relationship with the Texas Public
Speaker 3: Policy Foundation.
Speaker 2: So the Caesar Rodney Institute is a State Policy Network
Speaker 2: affiliate based in Delaware. The State Policy Network is this
Speaker 2: sprawling collection of libertarian right wing think tanks. There's at
Speaker 2: least one in all fifty states, and the State Policy
Speaker 2: Network serves to back these think tanks lobbying efforts and
Speaker 2: political efforts on the state level. That has to do
Speaker 2: with climate and it also has to do with just
Speaker 2: about everything else relating to education. For example, a lot
Speaker 2: of these state policy network groups have been active in
Speaker 2: the critical race theory panic recently and working against trans
Speaker 2: rights and trans healthcare. And in Delaware, the season Rodney
Speaker 2: Institute has become particularly interested in blocking offshore wind and
Speaker 2: our research found that they're extraordinarily well connected there. So
Speaker 2: the Sesar Rodney Institute and one of their directors of policy,
Speaker 2: a man named David Stevenson, created an astro turf of
Speaker 2: fake grassroots appearing anti offshore wind group called Save our
Speaker 2: Beach Views, and this group blasted out tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of mailers containing misinformation about a proposed local offshore wind
Speaker 2: project and raised a substantial amount of money off of it. Now,
Speaker 2: the Seesar Rodney Institute has graduated a bit from Save
Speaker 2: our Beach Views and put that group in a coalition
Speaker 2: with itself and four other state policy Network affiliates in
Speaker 2: for other states, as well as four other anti offshore
Speaker 2: wind groups across the East Coast. So this is a
Speaker 2: Rodney Institute has emerged as a major player in this movement,
Speaker 2: and you'll see David Stevenson pop up in congressional hearings
Speaker 2: talking about offshore wind and fundraisers for some of these
Speaker 2: local anti offshore wind groups. The Texas Public Policy Foundation
Speaker 2: is a climate villain in all regards. Way beyond the
Speaker 2: context of offshore wind, they have been working to advance,
Speaker 2: particularly natural gas nationwide. This is particularly odd considering how
Speaker 2: reliant Texas is comparatively on wind power. But still, the
Speaker 2: Texas Public Policy Foundation is heavily opportunistic and jumps at
Speaker 2: every chance it can get to disparage renewable energy of
Speaker 2: all kinds. A great example was during the freeze in
Speaker 2: Texas a couple of years ago, when they ran with
Speaker 2: the false narrative that wind power was collapsing and causing
Speaker 2: unreliability in the grid and causing people to freeze, when
Speaker 2: in fact it was due to natural gas and the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry not being able to cope with the
Speaker 2: low temperatures. And so the Texas Public Policy Foundation found
Speaker 2: a way to oppose an offshore wind project called fine
Speaker 2: Ear to Wind by funding a lawsuit to attack it.
Speaker 2: But the Texas Public Policy Foundation didn't sue themselves. They
Speaker 2: sued on behalf of six plaintiffs, all of which are
Speaker 2: fishing industry groups on the East Coast. All six of
Speaker 2: these groups are also members of the Responsible Offshore Development
Speaker 2: Association or RODA, which does a lot of research and
Speaker 2: coalition building in opposition to offshore wind So from thousands
Speaker 2: of miles away, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, also a
Speaker 2: State Policy Network affiliate, has found itself embedded, I should say,
Speaker 2: has embedded itself in this fight that frankly only concerns
Speaker 2: it because of its ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm curious about sort of the relationship between Texas
Speaker 3: Public Policy Foundation and Caesar Rodney and what you found there.
Speaker 2: Our map did not connect them other than having people
Speaker 2: in common. So they're both State Policy Network affiliates, but
Speaker 2: that's about it. I mean, they have similar supporters. Well,
Speaker 2: I mean the fact that they're both the premier State
Speaker 2: Policy Network affiliates in their states is really substantial. There's
Speaker 2: this phenomenal Jane Mayer article from I believe twenty thirteen
Speaker 2: about how the State Policy Network works, like ikea straight
Speaker 2: from the mouth of the State Policy Network CEO or
Speaker 2: president at the time, who's still the State Policy Networks
Speaker 2: CEO or president, that SPN works to equip all of
Speaker 2: these local think tanks with the information and the strategies
Speaker 2: that they need to fight prescribes battles in their state legislatures,
Speaker 2: and TPPF and CRI are both doing that in their
Speaker 2: respective states. So it's always going to look a little
Speaker 2: bit different whether you're talking about direct lobbying of legislators
Speaker 2: or filing lawsuits or setting up AstroTurf groups. That's where
Speaker 2: the IKEA assemblages look a little bit different from state
Speaker 2: to state, but it's all coming from the same catalog.
Speaker 2: And I think that remembering that is incredibly important when
Speaker 2: you're looking at how this seemingly disparate network of offshore
Speaker 2: wind opponents, but also disparate network of public education opponents,
Speaker 2: of public healthcare opponents actually share a lot of tactics
Speaker 2: and share a lot of strategies because it's no accident
Speaker 2: that they are coming from the same playbook sponsored by
Speaker 2: the State Policy Network.
Speaker 3: That's super interesting. I want to talk about all these
Speaker 3: little local operatives in these fights, right, and all of
Speaker 3: these people who get involved in this for one reason
Speaker 3: or another. And I feel like it starts to get
Speaker 3: complicated when we talk about these people, because some of
Speaker 3: them are themselves, you know, just don't like the idea
Speaker 3: of offshore wind for some reason or another. Some of
Speaker 3: them have like their own, you know, legitimate to them
Speaker 3: at least reasons for not wanting these projects, but then
Speaker 3: they get sort of like co opted into this whole effort.
Speaker 3: And I'd love to have you talk about that, because
Speaker 3: it's complicated, and that complexity gets flattened out when we
Speaker 3: talk about.
Speaker 2: This stuff a lot, for sure. Yeah, thank you for
Speaker 2: asking that question, because I do agree that it's something
Speaker 2: that gets lost. A good place to start would be
Speaker 2: Mary Chalk. She's a co founder of a Save Right
Speaker 2: Whales coalition and co director of Nantucket Residence for Whales,
Speaker 2: which was formerly known as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, and
Speaker 2: she was particularly interesting in our early research because of
Speaker 2: her conservation based rhetoric talking about whales and pollution about
Speaker 2: pristine views in Nantucket. She's appeared at events hosted by
Speaker 2: Green Oceans, which is the offshore wind group anti offshore
Speaker 2: wind group. In Little Compton, Rhode Island. She was wearing
Speaker 2: a whale costume at a public hearing that Green Oceans disrupted,
Speaker 2: and Green Oceans also has used a lot of that
Speaker 2: same rhetoric in terms of legitimate claims. It's important to remember,
Speaker 2: I think it's important to remember first that there are
Speaker 2: valid reasons to be worried about industrialization of natural resources,
Speaker 2: of these massive imported steel turbines popping up in protected
Speaker 2: waters or waters that are essential to certain endangered species.
Speaker 2: The conservationists have gotten really good at blocking projects in general,
Speaker 2: fossil fuel projects on those grounds, and I think you
Speaker 2: see an extension of that here. I don't believe that
Speaker 2: people like Mary Chalk are lying about their love for
Speaker 2: whales or lying about their love for environmental conservation, and
Speaker 2: you can see that firsthand in a lot of their
Speaker 2: Facebook groups. There's a ton of information and misinformation that's
Speaker 2: communicated through antiofshow in Facebook groups, and it's sometimes dozens
Speaker 2: of articles and photos every single day of whales that
Speaker 2: have washed up on coastlines across New England. So I
Speaker 2: think that's the more legitimate side of at least legitimate worry.
Speaker 2: It's always important to note here that there actually isn't
Speaker 2: a connection, has proven scientific connection between offshore wind construction
Speaker 2: and environmental conservation. That is something that I think is
Speaker 2: important to note because this isn't an AstroTurf movement, This
Speaker 2: isn't people like Mary Chalk haven't been placed by the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry to stir up something big. Another aspect
Speaker 2: that I think is important is property values. A lot
Speaker 2: of the people in Green Ocean's leadership have extremely expensive
Speaker 2: ocean front properties and would be seeing the turbines often
Speaker 2: dozens of miles out. If you look at the renderings
Speaker 2: in a recent lawsuit from the Newport Preservation Society about
Speaker 2: offshore wind, you can see actually how stunningly far out
Speaker 2: they would be and how they'd be really difficult to see.
Speaker 2: So even though that doesn't translate, it translates pretty rarely
Speaker 2: into rhetoric about actual property values. I think that's where
Speaker 2: a lot of that legitimate concern comes from, of like, hey,
Speaker 2: hired to the coasts, or I wanted to live in
Speaker 2: a space and see certain things that are important to
Speaker 2: me spiritually, important to me culturally, and massive offshore wind
Speaker 2: turbines are not those. And yeah, so that's that for
Speaker 2: I can talk about the fishing industry if you want to.
Speaker 2: I think they're super interesting in all of this.
Speaker 3: But yes, I would love to hear that, because the
Speaker 3: I mean that's interesting to me about the fishing stuff
Speaker 3: is like they've also been getting impacted by climate change
Speaker 3: forever so like, yeah, so, yeah, I would love to
Speaker 3: have you about that totally.
Speaker 2: So these self proclaimed conservationists have ended up in an
Speaker 2: alliance with a lot of players in the fishing industry,
Speaker 2: both opposing offshore wind. The conservationists for claims about whale conservation,
Speaker 2: and the fishing industry for worries that offshore wind can
Speaker 2: struc aduction will disrupt where fish are and what kinds
Speaker 2: of fish are in which places, as well as fish
Speaker 2: migratory patterns. Those concerns are a lot more founded than
Speaker 2: those about whales. It's still a really weird alliance because,
Speaker 2: according to Noah, fishing gear entanglement has caused sixty five
Speaker 2: percent of documented right whale deaths, injuries, and morbidity since
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. In other words, the biggest enemy to those
Speaker 2: who proclaim to love right whales is the fishing industry,
Speaker 2: who they've struck an alliance with and opposition to offshore wind.
Speaker 2: But there are legitimate reasons for fishing communities to be concerned.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a first strictly financial reason of needing
Speaker 2: a livelihood and relying on fisheries and relying on fishing
Speaker 2: grounds to produce certain kinds of fish at certain times
Speaker 2: of year, and also the cultural aspect of things. I mean,
Speaker 2: some of these fishing communities and fishing leaders are third
Speaker 2: fourth generation, potentially going back even farther. And so the
Speaker 2: idea of simply switching industries because a Danish energy company
Speaker 2: wants to put up wind turbines is unfathomable and fundamentally disrespectful.
Speaker 2: But we've seen some of these grassroots conservation style groups
Speaker 2: pick up that fishing rhetoric and forge those fishing alliances
Speaker 2: after making a lot of less maybe politically relevant arguments
Speaker 2: or certainly true arguments. So the fishing industry has become
Speaker 2: a very helpful tool. You could even call them a
Speaker 2: front for people who want to block offshore wind for
Speaker 2: other reasons, and that's everyone from those conservationists to the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel interests. I have no reason to think that
Speaker 2: the Texas Public Policy Foundation particularly cares about New England
Speaker 2: fishing communities. But if the fishing communities are going to
Speaker 2: get up in arms about offshore wind, than the Texas
Speaker 2: Public Policy Foundation can swoop in and fund a lawsuit
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 3: I actually saw something recently from Steve Mulloy.
Speaker 2: His articles have popped up everywhere.
Speaker 3: Under of the whales. Steve Mulloy seriously right, No, And
Speaker 3: that's why it's so preposterous.
Speaker 2: Like people at you know, See Fact and the Heartland Institute,
Speaker 2: who have been blocking climate policy and conservation policy for decades,
Speaker 2: We've made a whole career out of it, are now
Speaker 2: being used as defenders of the wales in the face
Speaker 2: of industrialization. And it's kind of preposterous when you think
Speaker 2: about it. But also, you know, and I want, as
Speaker 2: much as I want to be cynical about it, I
Speaker 2: think it's also worth remembering that this is how dire
Speaker 2: these anti offshore wind advocates feel. That their situation is
Speaker 2: that the strangest of bedfellows can be made, can come
Speaker 2: together so that these projects can be shot down, even
Speaker 2: when it's people who are responsible for hurting and killing whales.
Speaker 2: Whatever it takes to get these turbines out.
Speaker 3: Of there, was there anyone working on conservation solutions that
Speaker 3: didn't rule out offshore wind.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's hard to know what to do. We
Speaker 2: are trying a few different things. So there was a
Speaker 2: hearing in Little Compton in March or April that included
Speaker 2: Professor Timmins Roberts talking about the role of the fossil
Speaker 2: fuel industry. That included a marine biologist from the University
Speaker 2: of Rhode Island who talked about Wales. It was put
Speaker 2: on by a local state representative to give it a
Speaker 2: sense of you know, legitimacy and place for dialogue, and
Speaker 2: Green Oceans was and having it, you know, they protested.
Speaker 2: They got up and handed out leaflets at the door
Speaker 2: to make sure everyone knew the truth about offshore.
Speaker 3: When do you feel like it's become just really combatd
Speaker 3: in that way where people just are like not super
Speaker 3: open to conversation.
Speaker 2: So do I feel like people are combative?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Or just like people are just dug into their
Speaker 3: sides and not really even that interested in solving the
Speaker 3: issue anymore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do. I mean the Climate and Development Lab
Speaker 2: published a report about the misinformation tactics that Green Oceans
Speaker 2: has used in its literature, and they attacked the CDL
Speaker 2: on Twitter. We put out this report and we're getting
Speaker 2: attacked on Twitter for us being the ones sponsored by
Speaker 2: the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: A funny note on that is like they cited this
Speaker 2: is save LBI, Save on Beach Island. They cited a
Speaker 2: Brown Daily Herald article saying that Brown takes twenty million
Speaker 2: from the fossil fuel industry myself and will catch up.
Speaker 2: My co author in this co wrote that report too,
Speaker 2: and like, we know that this is the whole issue,
Speaker 2: that fossil fuel money is everywhere and we need to
Speaker 2: combat it everywhere, and just saying nah, no you is
Speaker 2: actually really counterproductive and not about actually creating the systems
Speaker 2: we need to be sustainable and as an academic institution
Speaker 2: to spread truth and facilitate free inquiry, but it's just
Speaker 2: about scoring points. But to go back to your I
Speaker 2: think this also relates to your earlier point about Steve
Speaker 2: molloy and people just wanting to win. They're in their
Speaker 2: entire There's such a media ecosystem, a standalone media ecosystem
Speaker 2: around anti offshore wind. They have at least a dozen
Speaker 2: Facebook groups with thousands of members each where you can
Speaker 2: just scroll through and read about wales dying, about turbines leaking.
Speaker 2: There'll be the occasional win. You know, a lawsuit in
Speaker 2: France that mandates that turbines have to be taken down
Speaker 2: to protect whales, or instead giving up on a couple
Speaker 2: of its projects in New Jersey and so you can
Speaker 2: celebrate alongside people and I don't know if you need
Speaker 2: to know what you're celebrating for. Then there's of course
Speaker 2: Fox News and the Murdoch media empire, and so people
Speaker 2: like Mike Dean, who appears in our map, go on
Speaker 2: Fox News and are put on national television talking about
Speaker 2: the impacts on Wales. This has also been happening with
Speaker 2: Sky News in Australia. There's this whole international element with
Speaker 2: Australia that we haven't even begun to analyze yet, where
Speaker 2: we're seeing a lot of the same tactics and a
Speaker 2: lot of the same media GoSystem happen. And once you're
Speaker 2: in this mindset that you can only trust a small
Speaker 2: subset of people who are speaking truth to power, it's
Speaker 2: really hard to get in and wrestle that idea away.
Speaker 2: And that's so not unique to Offshore Wind. Combating the
Speaker 2: right wing media ecosystem is often a very personal issue,
Speaker 2: and we just read these heartbreaking articles about people's parents
Speaker 2: and grandparents completely falling victim to it. That's so persuasive
Speaker 2: because it teaches you that you can't trust anybody else.
Speaker 2: So even when you have your elected officials, your university scientists,
Speaker 2: your scholars, your journalists coming out and saying that right
Speaker 2: whales are going to be okay and that we need
Speaker 2: wind turbines for a just transition. They don't seem to
Speaker 2: trust them, or at the very least they don't seem
Speaker 2: to find their articles they're persuasive enough to sort of
Speaker 2: lay down their arms. I don't know. We have this
Speaker 2: website called like realofshore wind dot com or something that
Speaker 2: like that that's like looks like kind of wary that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's awesome, Like it's a designed like one of these
Speaker 2: sort of scammy yes. Yes, yeah, so we're going to see.
Speaker 2: But it's like, I feel like the solution, other than
Speaker 2: you know, winning political battles, you know, in terms of
Speaker 2: like changing hearts and minds, it might just be the
Speaker 2: same tactics that we need to bring a lot of
Speaker 2: our people back.
Speaker 3: That's super interesting. The Australia connection makes me wonder if,
Speaker 3: because you know, State Policy Network and Heartland and whatever
Speaker 3: part of the Atlas network too. So, yeah, have you
Speaker 3: seen any ideas just sort of floating through that whole
Speaker 3: kind of conservative think tank ecosystem.
Speaker 2: More broadly, yes, the research on usherwind opposition and at
Speaker 2: LISS is really really new, like in the last few months,
Speaker 2: and so there's a lot we don't know yet. What
Speaker 2: we do know is that members of at LISS, just
Speaker 2: like members of SPN, are using i mean almost identical rhetoric.
Speaker 2: I can't confirm that there are talking points being passed around,
Speaker 2: but you can clearly see in for example, the white
Speaker 2: paper put out by Green Oceans that they are citing
Speaker 2: Steve Molloy and they are citing sea Fact and so
Speaker 2: whether or not somebody is hand delivering that misinformation and
Speaker 2: those polished talking points to them, we're still getting there.
Speaker 2: So when our report came out and I saw in
Speaker 2: the Green Oceans Facebook group something that a comment like,
Speaker 2: oh looks like we're in this network of fossil fuel
Speaker 2: industry interests and climate deniers who knew, I was thinking, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sure you don't think of yourself as
Speaker 2: being in that indus tree, but you are plainly borrowing
Speaker 2: from their talking points because you find them persuasive and
Speaker 2: they've made their way to you. So absolutely there's there's
Speaker 2: tons of shared rhetoric and shared talking points. It just
Speaker 2: remains to be seen how explicit this network is, how
Speaker 2: much people in it know that they're in it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's so interesting.
Speaker 2: But some of these conservations totally see themselves fighting the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry. The difference, of course, being that the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry is spending single digit percentages of its
Speaker 2: annual expenditures on renewable energy and then even then lying
Speaker 2: about it, Shell spending what one point five percent annually
Speaker 2: on renewables after they got caught for calling natural gas
Speaker 2: expenditures renewables. So I think that's the difference, and maybe
Speaker 2: that's a way to break through the media ecosystem.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, but that's interesting that there's this idea that
Speaker 3: we're also fighting oil majors because not only are they
Speaker 3: not spending that much, but their presence in the renewable
Speaker 3: energy space is creating opposition too.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I hadn't thought about that of like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, I mean, because there's all all of
Speaker 2: the discourse about like to what degree do we allow
Speaker 2: fossil fuel the fossil fuel industry to pivot, right, Like
Speaker 2: we can't trust them as actors, but you know they
Speaker 2: are as reliable, honest actors, but also they have all
Speaker 2: of this capital.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and technical expertise like that always gets slumped into it.
Speaker 2: Maybe we should just go completely invest in these startups
Speaker 2: or in particular transition to oil majors like or Steed
Speaker 2: because I don't know, but I don't know. I think
Speaker 2: I don't buy that because you'd still have all of
Speaker 2: the arguments about fishing and about where regardless of which
Speaker 2: company is setting.
Speaker 3: Up the turbines, right, Like the fishermen are they don't
Speaker 3: really care that it's BP.
Speaker 2: I just pulled up one of the tweets I've gotten
Speaker 2: In response Mike Dean, who was on Fox News that
Speaker 2: offer wind said, Wow, give them a few more semesters
Speaker 2: and they might find out the fossil fuel industry BP, Shell,
Speaker 2: equinor Orsted edf are the ones actually building the offshore
Speaker 2: wind projects. These grassroots groups are opposing genius.
Speaker 3: Wow, it's just so interesting, but it also just makes
Speaker 3: this problem really hard to solve. Right, last question, I
Speaker 3: just I would love to hear from you. What were
Speaker 3: some of the things that you found in the course
Speaker 3: of doing this research that were surprising to you? What
Speaker 3: kind of jumped out to you as being like WHOA
Speaker 3: was not expecting that? Or that You're like I really
Speaker 3: don't people pay attention to this?
Speaker 2: Sure? I think it's really important. I mean what we've
Speaker 2: just been talking about, how earnest A lot of these
Speaker 2: groups are seeing themselves as conservationists, seeing themselves as defending
Speaker 2: their fishing communities and fighting against these fossil fuel majors.
Speaker 2: This isn't like the AstroTurf climate denial movements of the past.
Speaker 2: A lot of this actually is organic and finding allies
Speaker 2: not because they love right wing climate denial think tanks,
Speaker 2: but because nobody else is coming to their aid. Megan Lapp,
Speaker 2: who's big in fishing policy on the East Coast. She's
Speaker 2: a fisheries liaison for a company called Sea Freeze in
Speaker 2: Rhode Island, even said this when she was asked about
Speaker 2: how she feels about the Texas Public Policy Foundation backing
Speaker 2: her lawsuit, and she said something along the lines of
Speaker 2: we need all the help that we can get. So
Speaker 2: it's not exactly a plea for plead to be gentle,
Speaker 2: but to get people credit for backing their communities again
Speaker 2: for a lot of reasons that actually aren't based in science.
Speaker 2: For you know, there's a lot going on there that
Speaker 2: isn't particularly savory. But we shouldn't just write this off
Speaker 2: and treat it like a bunch of misinformed old people
Speaker 2: with way too much time on their hands. They are
Speaker 2: responding to prievances that are real and imagined, but ultimately
Speaker 2: are powerful motivators for political action. I spend a lot
Speaker 2: of time in climate activist circles, and I think constantly
Speaker 2: about how dire climate change is, and how evil the
Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry is, and about how nobody is going
Speaker 2: to protect us but us. And I'm seeing a lot
Speaker 2: of these sentiments shared in this network against offshore wind,
Speaker 2: and disentangling that is going to be really difficult. Lea.
Speaker 2: Stokes put out a phenomenal article this fall about the
Speaker 2: term energy privilege, which showed how the communities that are
Speaker 2: blocking offshore wind are disproportionately white and wealthy, and they
Speaker 2: have energy privilege in that they're perceived harms which are
Speaker 2: potentially decreased property values, which are polluted quote view sheds,
Speaker 2: in other words, visibly seeing offshore wind turbines from their homes.
Speaker 2: Those harms are such small potatoes, honestly, almost embarrassingly small
Speaker 2: potatoes compared to the day to day experience of the
Speaker 2: predominantly black Latine and indigenous communities that foot the bill
Speaker 2: of the fossil fuel industry, those communities that experience oil
Speaker 2: refineries that lower life expectancies and give children debilitating asthma
Speaker 2: that results in extraordinary hospital bills that are given communities
Speaker 2: rare cancers through polluted air and water. So it's also
Speaker 2: important to not lose sight of what we're fighting this for,
Speaker 2: and there's balance there. We don't want to be sacrificing
Speaker 2: fishing communities like that's not fair to anybody. And that's
Speaker 2: what a just transition means. It means protecting and making
Speaker 2: safe and communities that are going to have to foot
Speaker 2: the bill of a renewable transition, But it also doesn't
Speaker 2: mean entirely caving to them so that we preserve a
Speaker 2: fundamentally racist and lethal status quo. So that's one thing
Speaker 2: that you know, when I was wrapping up this project
Speaker 2: and trying to make sense of this all, and you know,
Speaker 2: balance certain sympathy that I feel with also an unshakable
Speaker 2: belief in the power of renewable energy, in the urgency
Speaker 2: of renewable energy, to remember what's happening, what has to happen,
Speaker 2: so that these predominantly white and wealthy communities can avoid
Speaker 2: offshore wind and it's debilitating.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, that's the thing is getting that message
Speaker 3: to land with people in a way that doesn't put
Speaker 3: them on the defensive. It's just tough. The entire history
Speaker 3: of America is not one in which we have incentivized
Speaker 3: or rewarded people for doing anything for the common good.
Speaker 3: And we kind of need people to get there for
Speaker 3: the renewable transision to happen. But we haven't done that
Speaker 3: culture work. We haven't actually fixed the social contract in
Speaker 3: a way that would lay the groundwork for people to
Speaker 3: do that.
Speaker 6: And now we've got to do all that work really fast.
Speaker 6: What I want to do is lead by example. Like
Speaker 6: it's clear that we need a politics of pluralism that
Speaker 6: we don't have, right, I Mean, all of this movement
Speaker 6: is you know, fishing, like the fishing industry versus the
Speaker 6: offshore wind projects, the community groups versus the university professors.
Speaker 6: You know, we also see them as enemies of progress sometimes, right,
Speaker 6: I Mean, And that's not entirely fair either, because we're
Speaker 6: all looking out for our self interests in different ways,
Speaker 6: and we just make different decisions to decide what that
Speaker 6: self interest is right, and steamrolling them is not good
Speaker 6: for our democracy or good for our discourse. I mean,
Speaker 6: a great way to unleash a national or international lion
Speaker 6: of anti offshore wind opposition would be to call them
Speaker 6: climate deniers over and over again, or say that they
Speaker 6: don't have free will, or say that this is all
Speaker 6: some AstroTurf project of Charles Kochan friends.
Speaker 3: Right, or accuse them as being like white least, you know,
Speaker 3: especially when you have this weird coalition there right of
Speaker 3: like working class fishermen and then people who have ocean
Speaker 3: front estates.
Speaker 2: I know, and you know it's but also leaves difficult decisions, right,
Speaker 2: Like we do need to build these things really quickly.
Speaker 2: We do have scientists on one side of the debate.
Speaker 3: Like, there are going to be some trade offs. That's
Speaker 3: the thing I really believe we're really allergic to being like, yeah,
Speaker 3: there are some trade offs. Let's talk about it and
Speaker 3: figure out what are the impacts that we can live with, right,
Speaker 3: and how do we equitably distribute them as opposed to
Speaker 3: what we've been doing, which is just ignoring the impacts
Speaker 3: and letting them fall on the most marginalized people in
Speaker 3: our society, you know, it's not like energy hasn't had
Speaker 3: impacts before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just hard, I guess, having spent so much
Speaker 2: time in their face groups and media ecosystem, Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: hard for them to not feel like they are being
Speaker 2: targeted and policy is being imposed on them, social harms
Speaker 2: are being imposed on them without their consent.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: And that's something that a lot you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's that's Nimbeism at its core for surely.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Have you looked at any comparisons between this and
Speaker 3: what happened with fracking, because I feel like the thing
Speaker 3: they have in common is it's like the first time
Speaker 3: energy externalities were foisted upon white communities basically, I mean
Speaker 3: with fracking, it was mostly not wealthy communities, but it
Speaker 3: was certainly communities that were like not totally used to
Speaker 3: having the refinery down the street kind of problem. There's
Speaker 3: all these really interesting use cases where like, like in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 3: for example, a bunch of conservative communities ended up coming
Speaker 3: around to the idea of rice of nature and like
Speaker 3: embedding that in their town charters because all of a
Speaker 3: sudden they were like, wait a minute, Like so if
Speaker 3: my neighbor decides to go for a lease, but I
Speaker 3: don't and my water gets fouled, like I can't do
Speaker 3: anything about it, and I don't benefit from the lease.
Speaker 3: That's not fair.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: What can I read about that? That sounds super interesting?
Speaker 3: I'm going to send it to you because yeah, to me,
Speaker 3: I'm like, I see so many parallels between that and
Speaker 3: this stuff where it's like we're basically i mean, let's
Speaker 3: face it, people don't really think about this stuff until
Speaker 3: it shows up in their backyard, right, and then all
Speaker 3: of a sudden they think very differently about it they
Speaker 3: did before. Like I'm sure none of these people were
Speaker 3: like protesting against refineries being built in cancer ally, or
Speaker 3: the role.
Speaker 2: Of the fishing industry in you know, right whales, right,
Speaker 2: Like it's only once they are materially impacted or proclaimed
Speaker 2: to be materially impacted by seeing offshore wind turbines do
Speaker 2: all of these arguments about things that have actually been
Speaker 2: happening the whole time come out.
Speaker 3: That's right? Yeah, yeah exactly, And.
Speaker 2: We're going to see how it's going to turn out,
Speaker 2: because I mean, on one hand, like the offshore wind
Speaker 2: industry is going through significant hardship right now.
Speaker 3: I know that there was like a chart recently that
Speaker 3: showed this massive drop off in offshore wind installations in
Speaker 3: the US.
Speaker 2: It was like, no, of course the anti offshore wind
Speaker 2: groups are claiming victory. It doesn't seem like it's at
Speaker 2: all related to them, like this is about supply chain
Speaker 2: issues and inflation. But that sort of brought I guess
Speaker 2: all that up as like a caveat to remembering that
Speaker 2: they are losing like they've especially in New Jersey. They've
Speaker 2: found right wing politicians to be champions of the fire
Speaker 2: against offshore wind, no surprise there, and they are not winning.
Speaker 2: There was a special election a couple months ago. There's
Speaker 2: a good E and E news article about it. But
Speaker 2: that is not playing well overall. And so it also
Speaker 2: is going to be interesting to see what happens when
Speaker 2: they lose. I mean, you know, they can keep suing
Speaker 2: to death, but are they going to move on? Like
Speaker 2: is this going to be a new anti wind conspiracy group?
Speaker 2: Like is this going to be like a sustained movement?
Speaker 2: Are they going to kind of go home? A lot
Speaker 2: of them are really old and retired. Are you familiar
Speaker 2: with Gordon g He's the president of West Virginia University,
Speaker 2: the one gutting them right now. Yes, yes, So his
Speaker 2: ex wife is one of the major players in green
Speaker 2: oceans in Rhode Island, Constance g She's in our map.
Speaker 2: And that's kind of, you know, apropos of nothing. But
Speaker 2: it's like, Okay, people who are substantially wealthy and have
Speaker 2: been their whole lives, it seems, and are now living in
Speaker 2: these beautiful places. What's their real long term political game here?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so far, they haven't shown to have influence where
Speaker 2: it matters. There was a congressional hearing where David Stephenson
Speaker 2: was there, Bob Stern was there, Megan Lapp was there.
Speaker 2: They have successfully convinced certain municipalities to pass resolutions opposing
Speaker 2: offshore wind, like Little Compton, Rhode Island, but when it
Speaker 2: comes to Boham, for example, they're not winning because while
Speaker 2: agencies like Boham take into account community input, there's a
Speaker 2: whole host of other factors that the anti offshore wind
Speaker 2: movement can't address and hasn't been able to address. So
Speaker 2: you know, they're not an inconsequential in numbers. I mean
Speaker 2: you can there are these photos of all these protests
Speaker 2: with the hold hands along the beaches in New Jersey,
Speaker 2: and there's not not a lot of them. But I
Speaker 2: don't think they have their hands and the right levers
Speaker 2: of power. I mean, they have this one kind of
Speaker 2: random Congressman Jeff Andrew in New Jersey. They've gotten through
Speaker 2: a little bit to Jared Golden, who's a Democrat from Maine.
Speaker 2: But in terms of actual decision making capability, it's pretty weak.
Speaker 2: I mean it's pretty weak. So right now, I'm not
Speaker 2: super worried, but with offshore wind industry on the back foot,
Speaker 2: and with all of these lawsuits in the works, I
Speaker 2: wonder if the industry and advocates will get beaten down.
Speaker 2: I just don't entirely see that happening.
Speaker 5: LifeLock, how can I help?
Speaker 3: The irs? Said, I filed my return, but I haven't.
Speaker 4: One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price
Speaker 4: of identity fraud?
Speaker 3: What do I do my refront?
Speaker 4: Though I'm freaking out, don't worry. I can fix this.
Speaker 4: LifeLock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back
Speaker 4: with up to three million dollars in coverage.
Speaker 6: I'm so relieved, no problem.
Speaker 2: I'll be with you every step of the way.
Speaker 4: One in four was a fraud paying American not anymore.
Speaker 4: Save up to forty percent your first year. Visit LifeLock
Speaker 4: dot com. Slash podcast terms apply.