Judging by certain responses to our editorial last week, there is plenty of political polarization to go around, even in dark blue Rhode Island. In divisive 2024 America, not even a relatively bland endorsement of the short-term performance of a House Speaker can be allowed without claims of conspiracy and bias coming in as sharp as winds from a winter Nor’Easter. Such is life in the editorial column.

     Perhaps one note of criticism that was left out of last week’s prose that should not be omitted from actions taken this session pertains to a topic that every Rhode Islander should care about deeply and, dare we say it, even agree on — the safeguarding of our environment from the effects of climate change.

We’ve argued here before that the harsh reality of our shifting climate is not up for debate anymore. Science is no longer debating if our current trend of ecological habits will lead to destruction, but rather how soon will it lead to destruction, and how irreversible that will damage be.

From erosion of our beaches — EcoRI reports that Narragansett, which usually spends $8,000 to $12,000 hauling in sand to repair storm-blown beaches, spent between $60,000 and $80,000 already this year — to the anecdotal experiences of anyone who has noticed that we don’t really have regular rainstorms anymore (just a series of deluges that continuously cause flooding in any low-lying area of the state), it’s clear that the peril facing our planet is not going to just rectify itself.

While the state has set forth on a bold course to net zero emissions by 2050, are we doing enough in the meantime? Can we be doing more? Isn’t it imperative that we do more?

There were some positives that came out of the General Assembly this year in regards to climate, such as a bill from Sen. Alana M. DiMario (D-Dist. 36, Narragansett, North Kingstown, New Shoreham) and Rep. June Speakman (D-Dist. 68, Warren Bristol) that would offset the costs of setting up solar power installations ONLY on sites that don’t require clear cutting trees, or on brownfields that aren’t suitable for other developments. Such a bill will incentivize the production of energy not requiring fossil fuels on appropriate sites that don’t jeopardize Rhode Island’s trees, while allowing solar companies to pass savings received from subsidies onto consumers: a bona fide win, win.

Similarly, legislation from Rep. Jennifer Boylan (D-Dist. 66, Barrington, East Providence) and Senator Pamela Lauria (D-Dist. 32, Barrington, Bristol, East Providence) will require the state to consider climate change and sea level rise in its long-term economic planning; although we find it a little odd if that wasn’t already the case considering the state’s ongoing, aforementioned, long-term climate change plan.

The state has also partnered with local municipalities in the East Bay to look at long-term plans regarding now-consistent flooding along stretches of its most important state route (Route 114), which is something we would like to see replicated for state roads elsewhere in Rhode Island.

Perhaps it is not necessarily a point of criticism after all, as many leaders in the state are pushing these issues as a top priority, including one of our congressional Senators, but it is hard to not feel like in the grand scheme of things, efforts from the smallest state are just a small breath in the hurricane of consequences bearing down on us all.