Businesses, environmentalists join forces to stop NY offshore wind project they fear will harm fishing, sea life
In a rare move, businesses and environmentalists have joined forces in court to furiously fight New York's Empire Wind One offshore project, saying that it will devastate both the commercial fishing industry and marine life in local waters.
'A decade ago, we said it would affect fishermen, fisheries, and guess what? The state didn't care,' said Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association.
8 Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, is pushing back against a plan to build an off-shore wind farm off the coast of Long Island.
Gabriella Bass
'We are collateral damage — even though we feed people.'
The decade-long planned energy initiative, which began construction last April off the coasts of New York and New Jersey, faces a growing lawsuit from stakeholders in the tri-state area.
The Bronx's massive Fulton Fish Market Cooperative, which employs around 1,200, and Nassau County's Point Lookout Fishing Club, and the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association are some of the groups joining a legal action brought by environmentalists in the area.
Fulton's CEO said that the project will 'kill longstanding American port communities and economies' and grab 'thousands of real jobs, a sustainable food source, and the heart of the NY restaurant and tourism industry' by the gills as well.
Ocean City, Maryland has also come out in opposition of another offshore wind project close to its coast as well.
Locally on LI, Brady explained that in Point Lookout and nearby Long Beach — a mere 14 miles from the Empire project in the New York Bight — boats must dramatically divert around the massive windmill poles to reach canyons for fishing.
8 Brady getting interviewed on businessman John Catsimatidis' WABC radio show about the Long Island wind farm project.
Gabriella Bass
'Think of cruising on the Long Island Expressway and suddenly there's a bunch of telephone poles in the road.'
'They can't go through these projects because, God forbid, they lose power. Then what? Then they're just floating in the sea, so they can hit one of them,' she said, adding that fishing organizations in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are also in the lawsuit for similar reasons.
Beyond afflicting the industry, the intense, concussive noise and vibrations of the Empire Wind's construction are deafening whales, advocates warn.
8 A map of the planned Empire Wind One project.
boem.gov
8 A rendering of a Empire Wind 1 Sunset Park Onshore Substation.
Empire Wind
8 The size of a Empire Wind turbine compared to the Chrysler Building.
Empire Wind
Environmental groups Protect Our Coast NJ and Clean Ocean Action are also driving the same legal action over the threat to local whales — including the endangered North Atlantic right whale.
'Some of them are going to be permanently deafened as a result of this project,' said Brady, who noted that three dead humpback whales were recently spotted off local shores.
'If you're deaf and the sea is dark, and then you have to come up to the surface because you can't hear or see what's going on. Then you can be hit by a ship.'
8 A beached whale found on Long Island's south shore near Lido Bech on Jan. 30, 2023. Environmentalists warn that wind farms could pose a threat to marine life like whales off of Long Island.
REUTERS/Mike Segar
Wailing on business
Billionaire John Catsimatidis has also been a staunch opponent of the project as well.
'Not only is it killing the fishing business on Long Island, they're going to kill our whales, and they're going to increase the price of electricity for homes,' he said.
'I talked to the President about it a few weeks ago…he hates windmills, but he wasn't able to stop it because it was already put through before his term.'
Catsimatidis recently interviewed Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who also is churning against the 180 foot tall windmills — ones which will cost New Yorkers about 2.5 times the market rate for electricity, per a recent analysis.
'If you're not sure which way to go… you look at the map and you look at the economics, well, that should convince you against wind,' the Long Island based politician told Catsimatidis Sunday on WABC 770.
8 Catsimatidis is an opponent of the wind project off the coast of Long Island.
Gabriella Bass
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also expressed fears over increased sightings of dead whales around offshore wind sites.
'We've had 109 whale groundings in the last 22 months. And they're all in the proximity of these new offshore wind farms,' Kennedy told Catsimatidis last month.
'In the 20 years before that, the average whale grounding was 2.6 per year.'
8 A map of off-shore wind projects in the northeast.
Gabriella Bass
Kevin Halpin of the Point Lookout Fishing Club fears that the damage to marine life and the local ecosystem 'could be irreversible.'
'All for a project which is dirty, dangerous to our safety, and completely inefficient,' he added.
Equinor, the company in charge of Empire Wind, did not immediately return a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 minutes ago
- NBC News
CEOs globally brace for tariff turmoil with a new game plan
Trade tensions are rising, forcing top executives to rewrite the rulebook on how their companies operate, where they invest and what customers buy. In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries — from aluminum and aerospace to chocolate, banking, telecoms, and energy — sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old 'just in time' model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. This earnings season has been marked by currency swings, inflation, and political uncertainty. And in that environment, tariffs are no longer background noise. They're front and center in how companies are managing risk. For many in the C-suite, the threat isn't just about short-term costs — it's about staying competitive for the long haul. Build local, think political 'We are concerned about the competitiveness of aluminum compared to other materials,' Hydro Chief Financial Officer Trond Olaf Christophersen told CNBC earlier this week. The company is already passing U.S. tariff costs onto customers. But the deeper worry is how, 'some customers in packaging are already testing steel and plastic alternatives. That's the long game we're watching.' For Christophersen, it's not just a quarterly issue — it's a warning sign. And Hydro's concern reflects a broader shift: tariffs are speeding up lasting changes in how companies do business. One of the most common responses is moving production closer to customers. Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm told CNBC the company's North American factory, opened in 2020, was a forward-looking move. 'We've had that 'Made in America' stamp for some time,' he said. The facility now helps protect the company from shifting global politics. Volvo Cars CEO Håkan Samuelsson is also focused on the U.S. 'We want to fill our factory in South Carolina,' he told CNBC, noting that the company is breaking operations into more independent regions so local teams can respond quickly to new trade policies. Pharma giant AstraZeneca is also pivoting its footprint, rapidly shifting manufacturing to the U.S. and planning a $50 billion investment in local operations. 'We have lots of reasons to be here,' CEO Pascal Soriot said on the company's earnings call. For others, localization is as much about sovereignty as it is about logistics. 'We are building data centers for American hyperscalers in Europe, but also for Europeans in the U.S. It's a conscious decoupling,' Skanska CEO Anders Danielsson told CNBC. 'Sovereign tech is a real priority.' Not every company can shift where things are made. Some are relying on diplomacy. Rolls-Royce CFO Helen McCabe told CNBC the aerospace firm worked with U.K. and U.S. governments to win exemptions for key parts. 'It's not just about tariffs,' she said. 'It's about aligning our industrial footprint to minimize any friction.' That kind of behind-the-scenes outreach points to a bigger change: trade policy has become a key part of business planning. More companies are factoring in government relations and political risk when making decisions. Price hikes, policy risk and volatility Even the most proactive companies can't prepare for everything. Some are eating the higher costs. Others are raising prices — carefully. Lindt & Sprüngli, the premium chocolate maker, raised prices by 15.8% this year to offset soaring cocoa costs, driven partly by export restrictions in West Africa. 'We saw only a 4.6% decline in volume mix,' CEO Adalbert Lechner told CNBC. But he admitted that U.S. consumers are becoming more price-sensitive. Givaudan CEO Gilles Andrier shared a similar view. 'Some of our natural ingredients come from Africa and Latin America,' he told CNBC. 'So we're exposed to some tariffs there.' Even companies with local factories can't avoid all trade impacts when raw materials come from abroad. For companies tied to commodities, the trade duties are just one piece of a bigger puzzle: unpredictability. 'The tricky thing was, it was non-fundamentals-based volatility,' Shell CEO Wael Sawan told CNBC, describing recent swings in the oil market. 'This wasn't a change to physical commodity flows. This was really sort of paper-induced volatility.' That, he said, makes it harder to plan investments or manage price risk. Even in banking, where the direct impact of tariffs might seem small, the consequences are showing up. 'When you price risk now, you can't just look at credit or liquidity. You have to model policy unpredictability,' UniCredit CEO Andrea Orcel told CNBC. That includes trade tensions, regulatory surprises, and election-related gridlock. This quarter makes one thing clear: policy is now a core business risk, not background noise. With elections ahead and industrial policy shifting, companies are localizing, diversifying, lobbying, and repricing faster than ever. Tariffs aren't just a cost — they're reshaping industries. When customers trade aluminum for steel or chocolate for cheaper treats, the threat isn't just margins. It's market share. So yes, leaders are building closer to home, pricing smarter, negotiating harder as they scramble to stay ahead of the next curveball.
Los Angeles Times
31 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, from Laos to Brazil. And there were no real winners
WASHINGTON — President Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers — from small, poor countries such as Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty export taxes — tariffs — on the products they export to the U.S. starting Thursday. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that succumbed to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded — dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' — April 2 — when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after April announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually some of them did, acceding to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs to maintain their ability to sell to the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the U.K. for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low-single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening — 30% on the EU and 25% on Japan. Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt by a U.S. ally that China claims as its territory. 'Twenty percent from the beginning has not been our goal. We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei on Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral loss and inspiring a riot in the capital in 2023 — recalling Trump's role in the Jan. 6. insurrection two years earlier at the U.S. Capitol. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on long-standing U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his April 2 tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wends its way through the legal system, and may end up at the Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who typically pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all raised prices due to U.S. tariffs. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
NFL on the verge of selling media assets to ESPN for an equity stake in the network, AP sources say
The NFL and ESPN are expected to announce an agreement next week under which most of the league's significant media holdings would go to the sports network. People familiar with the transaction said the multibillion-dollar deal would give the NFL an equity stake in ESPN. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the deal has not been finalized. It was first reported by The Athletic. The NFL and ESPN had no comment. The NFL has been trying to sell its media properties for nearly five years. ESPN and the league have been involved in on-again, off-again talks for the past three years. The proposed move comes as ESPN is expected to soon launch its direct-to-consumer service, possibly before the end of August. The service would give cord cutters access to all of ESPN's programs and networks for $29.99 per month. Most cable, satellite and viewers who have streaming services will receive the service for free as part of their subscription. ESPN would get access to the popular RedZone channel, as well as NFL Network and an additional seven regular-season games (six international and a Saturday afternoon late-season contest). A couple of weeks ago, ESPN announced that NFL Network host Rich Eisen's three-hour program would air on ESPN Radio as well as stream on Disney+ and ESPN+. 'The Rich Eisen Show' is not affiliated with NFL Network. ESPN has carried NFL games since 1987 and 'Monday Night Football' since 2006. Under the current TV contract, it will have the 2027 and 2031 Super Bowls for the first time. NFL Network started in November 2003 and was the second major pro league to have its own network. NBA TV started in 1999, MLB Network in 2009 and NHL Network in the United States in 2007.
