Last night’s Megyn Kelly Show gave Americans a dose of common-sense patriotism when U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew sounded a warning about offshore wind projects being pushed off the Jersey Shore. Van Drew made plain what many hard-working coastal families already suspect: these massive industrial installations are not a tidy green miracle — they come with consequences for wildlife, local economies, and the people who live on the coast.
Van Drew and callers zeroed in on a disturbing uptick in whale strandings and the nerve-wracking idea that underwater construction noise and industrial activity could be disrupting sensitive marine life. Locals from Cape May and other shore towns have watched right whales, dolphins, and other species wash up in numbers that have set off alarms, and representatives like Van Drew are rightly asking why officials are racing to install turbines without answering the hard questions.
Federal agencies have acknowledged that pile driving and construction can harm marine mammals’ hearing and behavior in the short term, even if they insist it won’t cause mass mortalities. NOAA’s own analyses warn of temporary and in a few cases permanent auditory impacts from construction noise, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has outlined mitigation thresholds because the risk is real and measurable. Americans deserve that honesty instead of platitudes from officials more interested in meeting political targets than protecting nature.
Meanwhile, many scientists and some media outlets say there is no proven direct link between turbines and the surge in whale deaths, and those voices should be heard too. But it is not unreasonable for citizens to distrust a federal rush-to-deploy scenario when lawsuits and local outrage show regulators and developers are not answering every question about cumulative impacts and timing. This is exactly why watchdogs and affected communities have filed legal challenges demanding fuller study before we industrialize our coastlines.
There is also a less-discussed but very real environmental downside that is being ignored in the green glow of renewables advertising: the blades, resins, lubricants, and industrial chemicals that come with these projects have disposal and pollution issues. Researchers and industry reports show that composite blades are hard to recycle, can create landfill burdens, and may contribute to microplastic and chemical contamination over decades — concerns conservatives should take seriously when naive environmentalism promises a problem-free utopia.
If we care about conservation and common-sense stewardship, we should be willing to challenge the prevailing narrative that every project with a solar or wind label is automatically virtuous. Thoughtful critics point out that renewables often have huge land and material footprints and that energy policy must reward practical, reliable solutions rather than virtue signaling that sacrifices communities and species for a political win. The debate should be about balanced energy independence and smarter choices, not ideological haste.
Congressmen like Jeff Van Drew are doing the right thing by forcing a conversation on accountability, stronger environmental safeguards, and true local consent before turbines multiply off our shores. Washington owes coastal families transparent science, enforceable protections, and the humility to slow down until we have answers — not a rubber stamp for industry talking points. Americans who love their country and their coastlines should stand with leaders who insist on caution, truth, and respect for the people who live where the ocean meets the land.
