Even if the environment isn't your top priority, renewable energy is common sense
Offshore wind in Rhode Island will create thousands of good-paying union jobs in manufacturing, shipbuilding, port development, and electrical transmission — which is why it is backed by the
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
US competitiveness
Advertisement
China already dominates international markets in the production of solar panels and we can't afford to let the same thing happen with wind turbines. Turbine manufacturing is growing domestically, but it will collapse if
Price stability
Unpredictable fuel prices pose a major problem for businesses and residents alike. Oil and natural gas prices fluctuate widely based on geopolitical tensions. In contrast, the price of wind power is fixed by
Rising insurance rates
Insurance rates have skyrocketed nationwide due to the parade of natural disasters caused by climate change. Disaster relief for the recent California wildfires will cost an estimated $250 billion, while last year's Hurricane Helen cost $78 billion. Who pays? We do, through higher taxes and rising insurance rates. Each natural disaster also robs billions in precious tax dollars from essential programs such as education, health care, national security, and more.
Advertisement
Quality of life
It's easy to dismiss wildfires and hurricanes as distant disasters, but
Wildlife
By far, the biggest threat to marine life — both large and small — is rising ocean temperatures and acidification. This goes for commercial fisheries as well. Any short-term environmental disruption caused by the construction of offshore wind pales in comparison to the oil disasters like the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska (11 million gallons) or the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (200 million gallons).
Closer to home, the Argo Merchant spilled 8 million gallons of oil when it ran aground on Nantucket Shoals in 1976, and a tanker spilled 800,000 gallons of home heating oil off Moonstone Beach in 1996, closing 250 square miles of Block Island Sound to commercial fishing.
Equity
For many of us, power production is out-of-sight/out-of-mind. That's because fossil fuel plants are located in poorer neighborhoods, where they cause respiratory disease and childhood asthma. It's no surprise that
Because the federal government is now openly hostile to
Advertisement
Rhode Island currently has three offshore wind projects in various stages of development that will provide enough clean electricity to power more than 200,000 homes in the state, according to figures from the US Energy Information Survey. But these projects, and many more, are
Similarly,
So whether your top priority is jobs, national security, personal finance, equity, US competitiveness — or the environment — these initiatives will further your cause.
Providence-based writer Bill Ibelle is a member of
and the Rhode Island chapter of the
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - As nations abandon climate goals, cities are more important than ever
A series of recent actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to roll back environmental regulations includes plans to eliminate all limits on greenhouse gases from coal and gas-fired power plants and to rescind the 2009 finding that planet-heating gases, like carbon dioxide, pose a real threat to human health. These rollbacks also come on the heels of recent proposals from the European Union, Australia and Canada to relax rules related to emissions and environmental protections. The overwhelming international scientific consensus is that if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero around 2050. Unfortunately, current commitments from the international community through the Paris Agreement fall far short of reaching those goals. Despite the grim reality of weakened national ambition, cities continue to lead with bold and transformative climate action. Global cities are increasingly working collaboratively toward achieving carbon neutrality through innovative solutions and policy approaches that are replicable and scalable worldwide. Some have even set their sights on becoming climate-positive by removing carbon from the atmosphere to undo past emissions. New York City, which has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent within the next 25 years, is one such example. It has developed a number of innovative approaches to reducing emissions, including offering a range of resources to help commercial and large-scale residential buildings with energy retrofits, expanding low-carbon transportation options and cutting emissions from all foods served in city-operated premises. At the same time, the Big Apple has invested over $20 billion to adapt neighborhoods to climate change risks such as flooding, heat, and sea-level rise. The City of Helsinki in Finland has announced its goals to be carbon neutral by 2030, zero carbon by 2040, and thereafter, carbon negative. It is working to achieve this by reducing embodied carbon in buildings by setting limits on the amount of carbon emitted by buildings over their entire lifecycle, including from the production and transportation of the building materials. Construction companies are working to stay under the limit by combining a range of solutions, including changes in the choice of materials, heating solutions and building operations, and repurposing and reusing building elements. Among other innovations, Helsinki's energy company Helen closed its last coal-burning plant in 2025 and is cutting emissions in Helsinki by 30 percent compared to 2024. Helen is also building one of the country's largest underground heat storage facilities in former oil storage caves. The facility is projected to reduce Helen's carbon dioxide emissions by 21,000 tons annually. In the Netherlands, Amsterdam's goal is to achieve a 60 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, and a 95 percent reduction by 2050. The city's Climate Neutral Program focuses on reducing carbon dioxide released within the city of Amsterdam by phasing out the use of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal and structurally transitioning to cleaner energy such as geothermal and solar. The city is also providing grants, loans and free advice to its citizens to help accelerate the energy transition and phase out the use of natural gas in homes. Vancouver, Canada, is another city taking the lead, reducing carbon pollution by 50 percent by 2030 and taking proactive action to prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change. Its Climate Emergency Action Plan identifies a suite of actions focused on land-use planning, transportation and buildings. These actions collectively position Vancouver to reach three targets to cut carbon pollution from trips taken within the city: 90 percent of residents being within an easy walk, bike or roll of their daily needs, two-thirds of all trips being by active transportation or transit and 50 percent of all kilometers driven in Vancouver by electric vehicles. Two targets aim to cut carbon pollution from buildings in half from what it was in 2007 and to reduce embodied emissions from new buildings and construction projects by 40 percent compared to 2018. The Climate Change Adaptation Strategy provides a roadmap for addressing the top five climate change-related hazards that Vancouver faces. Sydney, Australia, has three long-standing business partnership programs. Through the Better Buildings Partnership, the city collaborates with property owners representing 55 percent of its office space. The partnership members have reduced emissions intensity by 95 percent. The CitySwitch program supports office-based businesses on their net-zero journey, and 80 percent of members have now switched to using renewable electricity. The Sustainable Destination Partnership brings together businesses in Sydney's accommodation and entertainment sector to reduce emissions, water, and waste. The programs all function as collaborative partnerships, with the city playing the role of convenor and facilitator. These cities are among 23 working together with my organization, Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, to achieve carbon neutrality, not just through incremental improvements but rather through radical, transformative changes to core city systems. The goal is to demonstrate innovative solutions and policy approaches that are replicable and that can inspire other cities to take action to reach carbon neutrality as soon as possible. And, as cities learn from each other about what works to achieve these goals, they are paying it forward by sharing the work and encouraging other cities to take similar action. Why is the work of cities so vital to addressing climate change? Urban areas are responsible for an estimated 75 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. By setting and achieving these carbon neutrality goals, global cities have the ability to keep us on track toward the Paris Agreement climate goals despite wavering support from the U.S. and other governments. Most critically, these efforts are vital to offsetting the threat to natural systems and promoting the health and well-being of all its citizens. Simone Mangili is the executive director of The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
As nations abandon climate goals, cities are more important than ever
A series of recent actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to roll back environmental regulations includes plans to eliminate all limits on greenhouse gases from coal and gas-fired power plants and to rescind the 2009 finding that planet-heating gases, like carbon dioxide, pose a real threat to human health. These rollbacks also come on the heels of recent proposals from the European Union, Australia and Canada to relax rules related to emissions and environmental protections. The overwhelming international scientific consensus is that if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero around 2050. Unfortunately, current commitments from the international community through the Paris Agreement fall far short of reaching those goals. Despite the grim reality of weakened national ambition, cities continue to lead with bold and transformative climate action. Global cities are increasingly working collaboratively toward achieving carbon neutrality through innovative solutions and policy approaches that are replicable and scalable worldwide. Some have even set their sights on becoming climate-positive by removing carbon from the atmosphere to undo past emissions. New York City, which has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent within the next 25 years, is one such example. It has developed a number of innovative approaches to reducing emissions, including offering a range of resources to help commercial and large-scale residential buildings with energy retrofits, expanding low-carbon transportation options and cutting emissions from all foods served in city-operated premises. At the same time, the Big Apple has invested over $20 billion to adapt neighborhoods to climate change risks such as flooding, heat, and sea-level rise. The City of Helsinki in Finland has announced its goals to be carbon neutral by 2030, zero carbon by 2040, and thereafter, carbon negative. It is working to achieve this by reducing embodied carbon in buildings by setting limits on the amount of carbon emitted by buildings over their entire lifecycle, including from the production and transportation of the building materials. Construction companies are working to stay under the limit by combining a range of solutions, including changes in the choice of materials, heating solutions and building operations, and repurposing and reusing building elements. Among other innovations, Helsinki's energy company Helen closed its last coal-burning plant in 2025 and is cutting emissions in Helsinki by 30 percent compared to 2024. Helen is also building one of the country's largest underground heat storage facilities in former oil storage caves. The facility is projected to reduce Helen's carbon dioxide emissions by 21,000 tons annually. In the Netherlands, Amsterdam's goal is to achieve a 60 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, and a 95 percent reduction by 2050. The city's Climate Neutral Program focuses on reducing carbon dioxide released within the city of Amsterdam by phasing out the use of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal and structurally transitioning to cleaner energy such as geothermal and solar. The city is also providing grants, loans and free advice to its citizens to help accelerate the energy transition and phase out the use of natural gas in homes. Vancouver, Canada, is another city taking the lead, reducing carbon pollution by 50 percent by 2030 and taking proactive action to prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change. Its Climate Emergency Action Plan identifies a suite of actions focused on land-use planning, transportation and buildings. These actions collectively position Vancouver to reach three targets to cut carbon pollution from trips taken within the city: 90 percent of residents being within an easy walk, bike or roll of their daily needs, two-thirds of all trips being by active transportation or transit and 50 percent of all kilometers driven in Vancouver by electric vehicles. Two targets aim to cut carbon pollution from buildings in half from what it was in 2007 and to reduce embodied emissions from new buildings and construction projects by 40 percent compared to 2018. The Climate Change Adaptation Strategy provides a roadmap for addressing the top five climate change-related hazards that Vancouver faces. Sydney, Australia, has three long-standing business partnership programs. Through the Better Buildings Partnership, the city collaborates with property owners representing 55 percent of its office space. The partnership members have reduced emissions intensity by 95 percent. The CitySwitch program supports office-based businesses on their net-zero journey, and 80 percent of members have now switched to using renewable electricity. The Sustainable Destination Partnership brings together businesses in Sydney's accommodation and entertainment sector to reduce emissions, water, and waste. The programs all function as collaborative partnerships, with the city playing the role of convenor and facilitator. These cities are among 23 working together with my organization, Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, to achieve carbon neutrality, not just through incremental improvements but rather through radical, transformative changes to core city systems. The goal is to demonstrate innovative solutions and policy approaches that are replicable and that can inspire other cities to take action to reach carbon neutrality as soon as possible. And, as cities learn from each other about what works to achieve these goals, they are paying it forward by sharing the work and encouraging other cities to take similar action. Why is the work of cities so vital to addressing climate change? Urban areas are responsible for an estimated 75 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. By setting and achieving these carbon neutrality goals, global cities have the ability to keep us on track toward the Paris Agreement climate goals despite wavering support from the U.S. and other governments. Most critically, these efforts are vital to offsetting the threat to natural systems and promoting the health and well-being of all its citizens. Simone Mangili is the executive director of The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance.
Fast Company
9 hours ago
- Fast Company
Trump's favorite expression: ‘I don't know'
On Monday, the head of U.S. disaster agency FEMA stunned staffers when he mentioned in a briefing that he'd not been aware of any such thing as 'hurricane season.' Not exactly an ideal grasp of weather phenomena for the person in charge of America's emergency management. Although a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security later claimed the comment was intended as a joke, it didn't exactly rouse more confidence in his abilities. 'I don't know,' after all, has lately become a go-to line among leaders all throughout the federal government—especially the president himself. The most egregious 'I don't know' in recent memory was almost certainly Trump's response when a reporter asked him if the president needs to uphold the U.S. Constitution, something he swore an oath to do, but that's just the tip of the uninformed iceberg. Ignorance may be bliss but in President Donald Trump's second term, it's just standard operating procedure. Nearly five months in, it's starting to look like the I Don't Know administration. Every shade in the 'I don't know' rainbow For leaders in every field, 'I don't know' can be a get-out-of-jail-free card for difficult questions, be they from board members, reporters, or staff at an all-hands meeting. 'I don't know' can be the meat in a sandwich where the bread slices are, 'that's a great question,' and 'I'll look into that.' It only tends to work as an acceptable deflection, however, if used sparingly. That's certainly not the case with the current president. Some of Trump's 'I don't know's'—which will be labeled IDKs going forward, for brevity—seem utterly genuine. It stands to reason that the president might have merely been candid, rather than obtuse, in an Oval Office meeting back in April when he said he did not know what 'the Congo' is. More often than not, however, those IDKs smack of tactics. Looking closely at the president's recent speeches, press conferences, and interviews, he appears to have three main modes for using IDK as a strategic evasion: the Ostrich, the Complicator, and the Minimizer. As the title suggests, the Ostrich is Trump's way of metaphorically burying his head in the sand. He employs it seemingly to avoid admitting an inconvenient fact, either to maintain plausible deniability or deflect blame. The Ostrich is perfect for neither confirming nor denying the details of Signalgate right as that explosive story first broke, explaining why the new surgeon general is a wellness influencer and not a practicing physician, or why Trump pardoned a violent January 6 rioter who assaulted a police officer. The Complicator is the IDK Trump trots out in an apparent effort to inject ambiguity into settled issues, or at least those with an obvious correct answer. Is the separation of church and state a good thing or a bad thing? Trump does not know. Do DOGE's massive cuts or the elimination of the US Agency of International Development require a vote in Congress? Who's to say. (Certainly not Trump.) Did Trump benefit at all from sky-high sales of the memecoin that literally bears his name? Consider asking someone else who may know of such things. Finally, The Minimizer is the IDK Trump seems to reach for when casting a moment or person as so insignificant as to not be worth talking about. It can't be a big deal if Trump doesn't even know about it—perhaps it never even happened! This one is reserved for not acknowledging things like Mitch McConnell's battle with polio or a Kennedy Center audience booing JD Vance. It can be hard to tell sometimes whether Trump is using strategic evasion or if he truly doesn't know something. Either way, when it comes to issues as important as the arrest and detention of a Tufts University student, seemingly over her writing of a pro-Palestine op-ed in a student newspaper, the leader of the free world not knowing about it is a problem. The evolution of Trump's IDKs Trump's history with IDK runs all the way back to the early days of his political career. In a February 2016 interview, Jake Tapper asked the then-candidate if he wanted to disavow a recent endorsement from former KKK leader David Duke, who told listeners on his radio show that week that voting for anyone besides Trump 'is really a treason to your heritage.' What should have been a no-brainer disavowal, however, ended up becoming an Ostrich moment. 'I don't know anything about David Duke,' Trump claimed. The non-disavowal quickly became a persistent news item, helped in no small part by unearthed footage of Trump previously denouncing Duke in the year 2000. (Trump went on to disavow Duke again, and blame a supposedly shoddy earpiece during the Tapper interview for his not doing so sooner.) During his first term as president, Trump seemed to use IDK's as a folksy performance of not being the average ivory tower egghead politician. He wouldn't simply admit when he didn't know something, he would cast it as groundbreaking information for Real Americans. The telltale term in such instances wasn't IDK, but rather 'nobody knew.' When Trump proved unable to quickly replace Obamacare, he famously lamented, 'nobody knew health care could be so complicated.' He used this construction so often, Now This made a supercut about it. As for those in Trump's cabinet and in Congress during his first term, the IDK's mostly came in response to reporters asking for reactions to Trump's provocative tweets. The 'I don't know' administration The difference between Trump's first term and his current one is that both Trump and his colleagues seem to be a lot more comfortable dropping IDK's, considering how often they do it. Another change, though, is the brazenness with which they offer them. The Secretary of Health didn't know whether the COVID-19 vaccine saved millions of lives or not. The Secretary of Education didn't know about a new policy of vetting social media accounts for foreign students. The Secretary of Labor didn't know her department had eliminated a whole agency, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, one that happened to be investigating self-styled DOGEfather Elon Musk. And neither the Secretary of State nor the Speaker of the House apparently knew about the president's private dinner for investors in his cryptocurrency during the week of the dinner. Members of Team Trump even cling to their supposed lack of information as they are offered enlightenment in real time. Anyone paying close attention to politics in 2025 will have likely seen by now the surreal spectacle of a grown adult denying the necessary knowledge to determine whether, say, January 6 rioters behaved violently, while being shown a video about it. The worst offender of the bunch is probably Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Questioned about a doctored image Trump shared in an effort to link mistakenly deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia with the violent gang MS-13, Noem vehemently refused to admit the image had obviously been photoshopped. 'I don't have any knowledge as to that photo you're pointing to,' she claimed, refusing to look at the blown-up image in question. When the congressman interrogating her asked an assistant to bring the poster image within five feet of Noem's face, she declined to look at it, and thus continued to know nothing about it. It's getting easier to believe, though, that Trump and his administration may not know a lot of things. Who knows what they won't know tomorrow.
