Action against climate change must be non-partisan

Judging by certain reactions to our editorial last week, there is a lot of political polarization, even in dark blue Rhode Island. In the divided America of 2024, not even a relatively sober endorsement of a House speaker’s short-term performance can be allowed without accusations of conspiracy and bias blowing as sharply as the winds of a wintry nor’easter. Such is life in the editorial column.

One critical point that was omitted from last week’s prose, and which cannot be omitted from the actions taken in this session, concerns an issue that every Rhode Islander cares about and, if we may say so, should even agree on: protecting our environment from the effects of climate change.

We have argued here before that the harsh reality of our changing climate is no longer up for debate. The science is no longer debating whether our current trend of ecological habits will lead to destruction, but how quickly it will lead to destruction and how irreversible that damage will be.

From the erosion of our beaches—according to EcoRI, the town of Narragansett, which normally spends $8,000 to $12,000 to haul sand to repair storm-battered beaches, has already spent between $60,000 and $80,000 this year—to the anecdotal experience of anyone who has noticed that we don’t really have regular rainstorms anymore (just a series of deluges that cause constant flooding in the lower areas of the state), it’s clear that the danger our planet faces isn’t going to fix itself.

While the government has embarked on a bold path to net zero emissions by 2050, are we doing enough in the meantime? Can we do more? Isn’t it imperative that we do more?

This year, there were some positive outcomes from the General Assembly on climate, such as a bill by Senator Alana M. DiMario (D-Dist. 36, Narragansett, North Kingstown, New Shoreham) and Assemblywoman June Speakman (D-Dist. 68, Warren Bristol) that would offset the costs of installing solar power systems ONLY on sites that do not require tree removal or on brownfields unsuitable for other development. Such a bill would encourage the production of energy that does not require fossil fuels in suitable locations that do not endanger Rhode Island’s trees, while allowing solar companies to pass on the savings generated by subsidies to consumers: a true win-win.

Likewise, a bill by Assemblywoman Jennifer Boylan (Democrat, 66th District, Barrington, East Providence) and Senator Pamela Lauria (Democrat, 32nd District, Barrington, Bristol, East Providence) will require the state to consider climate change and sea level rise in its long-term economic planning. We would find it a little odd, however, if this were not already the case, given the state’s ongoing long-term climate change plan mentioned above.

The state is also working with communities in the East Bay to develop long-term plans to address the ongoing flooding along the state’s main highway (Route 114). We would like to see this approach adopted for state highways in other parts of Rhode Island.

Perhaps this is not necessarily a criticism, as many of the state’s leaders, including one of our congressional senators, are pushing these issues as a top priority. Yet one cannot help feeling that the efforts of the smallest state are, in the grand scheme of things, just a small breath in the hurricane of consequences that is coming for all of us.