Opinion | Opposition to offshore wind is all hot air. Let’s build it already.

Yet opponents of offshore wind keep coming up with ways to say no. Republicans in Congress and some environmental groups claim the turbines would disrupt marine wildlife, especially whales. Military officials object that proposed sites would interfere with their operations. Fishing communities balk at having their preferred sites restricted for energy projects. And coastal NIMBYists worry that turbines would be an eyesore and hurt tourism.

These cavils are all hot air. They only prevent the United States from competing with the rest of the world in developing this essential energy industry.

Consider this: Britain derives almost one-third of its power from wind, half of it from turbines off its coasts. Half of Denmark’s energy system is wind-powered, including 25 percent offshore. China, too, is easily outstripping the United States: Of the 42 offshore wind farms that came into operation last year, 29 were Chinese.

Much of the opposition to offshore wind is rooted in truth but has been exaggerated by bad actors, as is often the case with clean energy.

Take, for example, the much-hyped threat to whales. Yes, marine life could be harmed by the development of wind turbines, especially from pile driving on the ocean floor, which creates loud noises and can injure whales’ auditory organs. And yes, the sound-based surveying of the sea floor can “harass” these animals, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has acknowledged when authorizing the activity.

But contrary to what many Republicans and fossil fuel interests claim, federal scientists insist that there is no evidence linking wind energy to whale deaths. The government has been tracking mass casualty events among whales for years, and recent spikes in deaths predate any wind development. More likely culprits are collisions with boats and entanglements with fishing nets, though more research is needed.

Plus, there are ways to mitigate the damage. Whales migrate, so construction could be scheduled for when it will do the least harm. Developers could also consider buffer zones for key feeding areas.

The Pentagon’s objections are similarly surmountable. It’s true that many potential locations for offshore wind overlap with areas used for fighter jet training and weapons stations. But no one gave the military the authority to dictate the nation’s energy policies. Surely a compromise can be found to set aside some areas for turbines and preserve others for military use, as happened in California.

There’s also an obvious rejoinder to all these objections: Inaction has far greater consequences.

What is worse for whales: a one-time disruption during the construction of wind turbines, or the unraveling of their habitat due to the unmitigated release of carbon into the atmosphere? What is worse for the fishing industry: restrictions on where companies can do business, or allowing the ocean to continue to acidify, threatening food chains? And what is worse for tourism: a blemished seascape (to the extent that people can actually see wind turbines, which depends on how far out they are), or letting rising seas submerge coastal communities?

The United States doesn’t have time for political paralysis. The rate at which the country is electrifying cars and home heating requires an expansion of its electricity capacity. Congress can speed up clean energy projects by reforming the long permitting process. Given the apparent interest in a bipartisan deal, this should be among lawmakers’ top priorities.

There is no perfect, cost-free energy source. But offshore wind is better than most. Americans must recall the industrious spirit of previous generations and start building it already.