From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article posted by CBS News, Chicago asks the question on nobody’s mind: “Will climate change put the Chicago area at heightened risk for hurricanes?” This question and the thinking behind it are ridiculous. Although it is true that the remnants of tropical storms and hurricanes can reach Chicago, and have in the past, there is little reason to think that climate change will make it more likely to occur in the future or more severe if or when it does.

CBS claims that the recent hurricane Helene “brought tropical flooding to inland regions not typically at risk,” warning that it’s now clear that “climate disasters can happen anywhere.” Besides the obvious issue of CBS conflating climate (long term average) with weather (a short term event), it is also untrue that it’s unusual for hurricanes to bring heavy rain inland. In fact, hurricane related flooding has occurred in the Appalachians long before industrialization could be blamed. The flood of 1916 in Asheville, North Carolina was much worse than this recent one.

If that wasn’t silly enough, CBS turns to the unscientific realm of rapid attribution studies to claim that human contributions to climate change “fueled Milton’s rapid intensification, according to Climate Central,” and asks the question “[a]s the impacts of climate change get worse faster, what, if anything, could reach Illinois now or in the future from hurricanes?”

This question carries a tiny thread of truth, that is, that the remnants of tropical storms and hurricanes can and do affect regions far away from the coasts, with CBS giving the examples of Hurricane Ike and Tropical Storm Lowell, the latter of which which caused flooding in Chicago that was severe enough to warrant an emergency declaration in 2008. However, this is not new, and the evidence CBS uses to try to frighten readers into believing that hurricanes will soon pose a greater threat up north is mere propaganda and not real data.

CBS cites Climate Central, a climate activism and advocacy group which is often caught spreading fake news and misleading information about climate science in order to push alarmist narratives. For instance, they touted the University of Maine’s faulty climate reanalyzer in 2023 as though it represented measured data when it does not. CBS also references rapid attribution analyses from groups like World Weather Attribution. Climate Realism has covered their false “science” assertions many times, where they use counterfactual computer models to claim that any given storm is the result of human-caused climate change. There will never be a weather event that World Weather Attribution can’t tie to climate change, because they begin with the assumption that climate change juices every weather event.

The reason mainstream media organizations like CBS rely on attribution study groups instead of real data, is because the available data do not show that hurricanes are getting more intense, wetter, or more frequent. Although Climate Realism has covered hurricanes many times this season (here, here, and here, just in the last 2 weeks), it is worth going over the facts again.

Major hurricanes, according to global hurricane frequency data, are not getting more common, nor are less powerful hurricanes. (See figure below)

In regards to strength, there is no demonstrable increasing trend in global accumulated cyclone energy. If that’s not enough, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report, in Chapter 12, Table 12.12, identifies no connection between tropical cyclones and climate change. Not in the present, or the future, even under extreme emissions scenarios. (See figure below)

Facts are inconvenient for climate hucksters like CBS, which end up looking like fools trying to ignore reality in order to frighten readers in places like Chicago. Yes, the remnants of a hurricane or tropical storm can make it up to Chicago, but no, there is no indication that such occurrences are common or are set to become a frequent problem in the future. CBS has to know this, otherwise they would not rely so heavily on the nebulous claims of attribution artists.

In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.

The PEIS covers six commercial wind energy leases off the shores of New Jersey and New York, totaling over 488,000 acres. While its primary focus is to outline measures to “avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor” impacts, the fact that BOEM is even considering these measures implies a long-overdue acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential to harm marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The language in the document hints that these developments are not entirely benign, despite being repeatedly framed as environmentally friendly solutions to the climate crisis.

Impacts Revealed

While BOEM insists that the PEIS is “programmatic” and not the final say on the matter, the document does provide insight into some of the broader consequences of wind energy development. The PEIS details potential adverse impacts across various categories:

Biological Impacts: Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement, and changes in migration patterns. Even bats, which are not typically associated with offshore environments, could be affected.

Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts: The potential effects on water and air quality, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and scenic resources are all outlined. These sections make it clear that local economies and communities reliant on the ocean could experience significant disruptions.

Mitigation Measures are Not Enough: Although the report outlines numerous Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Monitoring (AMMM) measures, it also acknowledges that some impacts are “unavoidable”.

A Major Shift in Tone

The PEIS goes further by recognizing the “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” This bureaucratic phrase translates to the permanent alteration of ecosystems and loss of natural resources due to wind farm construction. It is a striking concession from an agency typically focused on facilitating development.

For years, opponents of offshore wind have argued that the push for rapid renewable energy development has overlooked the consequences for marine life and coastal communities. BOEM’s new PEIS seems to suggest that these concerns may have been valid all along.

Why This Matters

The document comes amid growing criticism of how offshore wind projects are assessed and approved. Many argue that the rapid pace of development is being prioritized over thorough environmental review. With this PEIS, BOEM may be signaling a more cautious approach, perhaps influenced by increasing legal challenges, public backlash, and even emerging scientific research indicating that wind turbines are not as harmless as once believed.

Moreover, the timing of this document is significant. The Biden Administration aims to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 as part of a broader strategy to combat climate change. However, this goal seems increasingly at odds with the realities outlined in the PEIS—realities that indicate a more nuanced balance must be struck between renewable energy expansion and marine conservation.

The BOEM’s PEIS could be seen as a long-awaited admission that the rush for offshore wind might be causing harm. While the document falls short of halting development, it sets the stage for more rigorous scrutiny of future projects. Environmentalists, coastal communities, and fishermen who have long voiced concerns can now point to the PEIS as evidence that their voices are finally being heard.

BOEM’s acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential downsides is not just a bureaucratic shift—it’s a chance to reconsider how we approach renewable energy development. Balancing climate goals with the protection of marine environments will be crucial, and this PEIS could be the first step in that direction.