Danger at sea — NY’s offshore wind power will kill whales, ground ships and more

New York Post - Apr 11th, 2025

The Empire Wind offshore wind project has begun construction in the New York Bight, a critical marine ecosystem on the East Coast. This development involves dumping 3.2 billion pounds of rock into the ocean to support monopile foundations for wind turbines, threatening vital habitats for fish and endangered species, such as the North Atlantic right whale. The project has stirred major controversy due to its potential to harm fisheries, disrupt marine life, and impact coastal economies from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Additionally, the project raises national security concerns, as operations must be halted upon orders from the Department of Defense, and radar interference warnings have been issued by the FAA.

Critics argue that the project’s environmental and economic costs far outweigh its benefits, pointing out that offshore wind energy is significantly more expensive and unreliable compared to current energy sources. Furthermore, Empire Wind is backed by US tax credits but operated by Equinor, a foreign company, meaning profits won't benefit local communities. Concerns are amplified by past incidents, such as turbine malfunctions affecting coastal tourism, and global precedents like Sweden's cancellation of offshore wind projects due to military concerns. There are calls for President Trump to enforce his executive order protecting American fisheries to prevent irreversible damage by Empire Wind.

National Security North Atlantic Right Whale Environmental Impact President Trump Empire Wind New York Bight Offshore Wind Energy Marine Ecosystem Equinor Us Tax Credits

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical view of the Empire Wind project, highlighting potential environmental, economic, and national security concerns. While it addresses timely and significant public interest issues, the lack of balanced perspectives and detailed evidence undermines its accuracy and reliability. The story engages readers with its assertive tone and provocative claims but falls short in providing a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of the topic. To enhance its impact and credibility, the article would benefit from a more balanced presentation of viewpoints and robust evidence supporting its claims. Overall, it serves as a starting point for discussion but requires further investigation and verification to inform public opinion effectively.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that require verification to determine their accuracy. For instance, the claim that Empire Wind involves dumping 3.2 billion pounds of rock into the ocean needs confirmation regarding both the quantity and environmental impact. Additionally, the assertion about the project's potential harm to over 300 whales, including causing temporary deafness, should be cross-referenced with NOAA's permit details.

The article also mentions economic impacts on the fishing industry and potential national security risks due to radar interference, both of which require further investigation to verify their validity. While the story raises significant concerns, it lacks detailed citations or references to authoritative sources that could substantiate these claims, which affects its overall accuracy score.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a negative perspective on the Empire Wind project, focusing on potential environmental, economic, and national security risks. It lacks a balanced viewpoint by not including perspectives or statements from the developers of the project, environmental experts who might support renewable energy initiatives, or government agencies involved in the permitting process.

This one-sided presentation suggests a bias against the project, as it does not adequately explore potential benefits or counterarguments, such as the project's contribution to renewable energy goals or mitigation measures in place to address environmental concerns. The absence of these perspectives limits the reader's ability to form a well-rounded understanding of the issue.

Clarity

The article is relatively clear in its language and structure, presenting its arguments in a straightforward manner. The tone is assertive, which may engage readers, but it also leans towards alarmism, potentially affecting neutrality. The piece is logically organized, with each claim followed by supporting details, although these details lack substantiation.

While the article is easy to follow, the clarity is somewhat compromised by the lack of detailed evidence and references, which may leave readers questioning the validity of the information. A more balanced tone and inclusion of evidence would enhance clarity and understanding.

Source quality

The article does not provide specific citations or references to credible sources, which undermines its reliability. There is a lack of attribution to authoritative entities such as NOAA, the Department of Defense, or the FAA, whose input would be crucial for verifying claims related to environmental impact, national security, and aviation safety.

The piece appears to rely heavily on the perspective of Bonnie Brady, the executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which may introduce a conflict of interest given her likely opposition to the project due to its impact on fishing. The absence of diverse and authoritative sources diminishes the story's credibility.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its presentation of facts and claims, as it does not disclose sources or provide clear methodologies for how conclusions were drawn. There is no mention of the basis for the claims about environmental and economic impacts, nor are potential conflicts of interest addressed, particularly regarding the author's affiliation.

The piece would benefit from greater transparency by detailing the sources of its information and any potential biases, as well as explaining the methodology behind the claims made. This would help readers better understand the context and reliability of the information presented.