Hoping to add a Green Bond measure to the 2026 ballot
Just as they did before the 2024 state
election, Sen. Louis P. DiPalma and Rep. Megan L. Cotter have introduced
legislation to add land preservation programs to the “green bond” proposed for
November’s ballot.
Legislation they have introduced would add funding to the
proposed Green Bond for state and local programs for conservation of open space
and farmland, as well as for recreational spaces and programs.
“Rhode Islanders value the protection of open space, which
is evident by the wide approval our Green Bonds usually get each election.
Conservation is usually a big part of our Green Bonds, and it’s what Rhode
Islanders expect to get when they vote to support them,” said Representative
Cotter (D-Dist. 39, Exeter, Richmond, Hopkinton).
“Our legislation ensures our
state and local conservation programs can continue to save farmlands, forests
and other vital resources that help protect our environment, maintain our
state’s natural beauty and character and provide access to recreation and
peaceful places that all Rhode Islanders deserve.”
Sen. Alana M. DiMario has introduced
legislation to attract and retain much-needed workforce talent by establishing
a fund to provide partial loan repayments to Rhode Island workers employed in
high-need professions.
“Student loan debt is a burden facing so many of our young
professionals, and having a program established to assist them will allow the
state and its employers to quickly put available workforce development dollars
from any source to effective use to attract and retain much-needed talent,” said
Senator DiMario (D-Dist. 36, Narragansett, North Kingstown, New Shoreham).
“In
the short term this could address our state’s health care staffing crisis by
helping to recruit and retain professionals in high-demand areas, including
primary care providers and mental health practitioners, but it would work
equally well for other sectors of our workforce that might experience shortages
in the future. Additionally, administering this program through the
existing Rhode Island Student Loan Authority cuts down on administrative costs
for the state by reducing duplicative programs and means that participants
could maximize their repayment and tax benefits.”
The bill (2026-S 2662) would establish a fund under the
administration of RISLA to provide loan-repayment assistance to workers in
high-need professions who have committed to work full-time in their profession
for a prescribed term of service.
Our country faces an affordability crisis amidst fundamental
attacks on democracy.
Public employee pension plans can either be part of the solution or part of the
problem.
Late last year, New York City Comptroller
Brad Lander recommended the city’s pension boards drop BlackRock and other
portfolio managers that don’t have decarbonization plans up to the city’s
standards. Lander’s initiative was blocked, and the editorial board of The Washington Post accused him of playing
politics. But Lander argued that his recommendation was in line with the
government’s fiduciary duty to protect the long-term value of pension funds,
the retirement systems most public sector workers rely on—and
have been paying into their entire careers. He’s right.
In this critical moment
in history, companies that are actively hastening climate change,
threatening housing security, eliminating jobs and industries, and
destabilizing our democracy and economy do not deserve our investment. Yes,
they are acting immorally but they are also very bad investments with little
promise of future returns for public sector workers. It’s not “playing
politics” to refuse to fund their efforts to dismantle our society. That’s why
we’re calling on pension boards across the country to take a hard look at their
portfolios and make the smart business decision: stop investing in companies
like this today.
The stakes could not be higher: pension funds account
for $6.1 trillion in state and local defined-benefit funds
alone. Every month, nearly 15 million workers across the country contribute
part of their paycheck to ensure they have enough income to retire securely.
This is a big pot of money and the companies that boards choose to invest it
with matter.
For public sector workers, pensions are not only retirement funds,
but deferred current compensation. Workers are forsaking their hard-earned
money today for the potential of a dignified future. Meanwhile, corporations
are using that money today to further their own goals—many of which are
directly at odds with the goals, livelihoods, and futures of public employees.
EDITOR'S DISCLOSURE: Steve Lerner and I go back 40 years when he was a young textile worker organizer. Steve was a frequent house guest at our suburban DC home. On one of his visits, Cathy and I (well, mostly Cathy) introduced him to Marilyn Sniederman. I told Cathy I wouldn't recognize her skills as a yenta until the bris of their first son. When that happened, I admitted my mistake. Later on, when I went to work in the labor movement, I worked with both Marilyn and Steve in my first union job. I owe them both. - Will Collette
For women who may be interested in running for elected office, a one-day nuts-and-bolts training session is coming to Providence Friday March 27.
The League of Women Voters of Rhode Island and the Women’s Fund of the Rhode Island are sponsoring The Campaign School at Yale’s (TCSYale) “The Basics” training to help women (and those supporting their campaigns) gain the skills needed to run and win.
The session runs from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and offers practical guidance, campaign fundamentals, and the confidence to take their first step toward public leadership. Registration is $30 and lunch is included.
While the scientific evidence about climate change has not
changed, the legal obligation to act on it has
By Bonnie Phillips / ecoRI News staff
The Environmental Protection Agency on Feb. 12 revoked its
own 2009 “endangerment finding,” a scientific conclusion that for 16 years had
been the central basis for regulating planet-warming emissions from power
plants, vehicles, and other sources.
The finding itself is straightforward: carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases — caused by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and
gas — endanger public health and welfare. The finding relied on evidence from
multiple scientific authorities, including the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine, and was adopted after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in 2007 that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that can be regulated
under the Clean Air Act.
The Trump administration has claimed the endangerment
finding hurts industry and the economy and that the Obama and Biden
administrations twisted science to determine that greenhouse gases are a public
health risk. While other air pollutants will still be regulated, the decision
specifically removes the main legal foundation for federal greenhouse gas
limits tied to fossil fuel use.
In practical terms, this means federal regulators are no
longer required to set nationwide limits on these emissions. The scientific
evidence about climate change hasn’t changed, but the legal obligation to act
on it has.
“Despite overwhelming opposition from state and local
leaders nationwide, the Trump administration’s actions depart from
well-established scientific consensus and substantially weaken the federal
government’s authority to regulate harmful emissions, rolling back longstanding
public health safeguards and vehicle emissions standards,” said Terry Gray,
director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. “Allowing
greenhouse gas emissions to go unchecked exacerbates the climate and public health
challenges communities are already experiencing. Rhode Island remains committed
to protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents.”
Getting drug advice from a guy who sniffed cocaine off toilet seats and who was a heroin addict
Phillip Reese
After a grueling year of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation to treat breast cancer, Sadia Zapp was anxious — not the manageable hum that had long been part of her life, but something deeper, more distracting.
“Every little ache, like my knee hurts,” she said, made her worry that “this is the end of the road for me.”
So Zapp, a 40-year-old communications director in New York, became one of millions of Americans to start taking an anxiety medication in recent years. For her, it was the serotonin-boosting drug Lexapro.
“I love it. It’s been great,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage.”
The proportion of American adults who took anxiety medications jumped from 11.7% in 2019 to 14.3% in 2024, with most of the increase occurring during the covid pandemic, according to survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s 8 million more people, bringing the total to roughly 38 million, with sharp increases among young adults, people with a college degree, and adults who identify as LGBTQ+.
Even as psychiatric medications gain public acceptance and become easier to access through telehealth appointments, the rise of a class of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, known as SSRIs, has triggered a backlash from supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement who argue they are harmful.
Doctors and researchers say medications such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Lexapro are front-line treatments for many anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder, and are being misrepresented as addictive and broadly harmful even though they’ve been proved safe for extended use.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has decried broadening SSRI use. During his Jan. 29 confirmation hearing, he said he knows people, including family members, who had a tougher time quitting SSRIs than people have quitting heroin. More recently, he said his agency is studying a possible link between the use of SSRIs and other psychiatric medications and violent behavior like school shootings.
How Will the War in Iran Affect Your Utility Bills?
By Kiley Bense
Trump's planned ballroom seems to be holding Trump's attention more than the war he started with Iran
This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine set off a global energy crisis in 2022, sending prices for oil and gas skyrocketing in Europe and the U.S. for months on end. Many Americans struggled to keep up with their bills, and disconnections—when utility companies shut off power or heat because of nonpayment—spiked.
Now, energy experts fear the Trump administration’s decision to attack Iran could trigger a similar sequence of events. Qatar has shut down production at the world’s largest liquefied natural gas facility. Liquefying natural gas allows it to be stored and moved over longer distances than pipelines can accommodate. Shipments through a critical trade route, the Strait of Hormuz, have been cut off. Fifteen percent of the global oil supply and 20 percent of global LNG normally pass through this waterway.
In response, oil, gasoline and diesel prices are up, and natural gas prices in Europe are surging. The conflict is “wreaking havoc with global gas and LNG markets, even more so than oil,” according to analysts at Wood Mackenzie, the global energy and natural resources consulting firm. Asian markets “are the most exposed,” but “Europe is also in panic mode,” the analysts said.
The world hasn’t yet seen disruption on the scale of what happened at the start of Russia’s years-long attack on Ukraine, but that’s where we could be headed.
“If this continues for a full week, that’s the kind of trajectory that we might be on,” said Clark Williams-Derry, energy finance analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “The longer this conflict lasts, the more likely we are to see higher prices that people are paying for natural gas.”
The Ukraine war, he warned, led to “a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary households, people who are paying utility bills, to the people who are providing them with fossil fuels.”
The immediate fallout from the war with Iran illustrates the problems with ramping up U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas without any policy guardrails,he said. The more LNG that America exports, the more domestic natural gas prices are tied to swings in the global market. “It’s U.S. consumers who are bidding against global consumers for the same gas,” he said.
For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.
A recent CNN poll found that 59% of Americans oppose the war – a trend found in poll after poll since the war began.
As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that what’s likely generating public opposition to the Iran war today is the absence of a big story with a grand purpose that has bolstered public support for just about every major U.S.-promoted regime change war since 1900. These broad, purpose-filled narratives generate public buy-in to support the costs of war, which are often high in terms of money spent and lives lost when regime change is at stake.
Likewise, in the 2000s a dominant narrative about preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and stopping terrorism brought strong initial public support for the war in Afghanistan, with 88% support in 2001, and the war in Iraq, with 70% support in 2003.
With no comparable narrative around Iran today, Trump and Republicans could face big problems, especially as costs continue to rise.
No anti-Iran narrative
Trump criticized for disrespectful baseball cap at homecoming of caskets of soldiers killed in Iran War
Iran has been a thorn in the side of many American presidents for a long time. So, what’s missing? Why no grand-purpose narrative at the start of this war?
Gains like these by rivals prove traumatic to the nation. They also dislodge the status quo and provide the opportunity for new grand-purpose narratives with new policy directions to emerge.
Today, most Americans see no existential danger around Iran. A Marist poll from March 3, 2026, found that 55% of Americans view Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. And the number who see Iran as a major threat, 44%, is down from 48% in July 2025.
By contrast, 64% of Americans saw Iraq as a “considerable threat” prior to the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq.
In the summer of 2025, Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities were significantly damaged – “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump, though there is no confirmation of that claim – during the 12-Day war between Iran and Israel.
Makes patients stay in the hospital when they might not need to
By Carl Dimitri, Senior Writer, School of Public Health, Brown University
A
long-standing Medicare policy meant to manage rehabilitation services in
nursing homes may keep older Americans in hospitals longer than necessary
without improving patient health or saving Medicare money, new research finds.
Established in 1965, the rule was intended to manage the use
of skilled nursing facilities, which provide short-term medical and
rehabilitative care to Medicare beneficiaries. Known as the “three-day rule,”
it requires patients to spend at least three consecutive days in the hospital
before Medicare will cover care in a nursing facility. Skilled nursing
facilities are used as a post-hospital benefit by one in five Medicare
beneficiaries after hospitalization, and Medicare pays an average of about
$15,000 for each stay.
The old saying "you are what you eat" suggests
that our food choices determine our health and longevity. Now, a study published in
the journal Science Advances has put some specifics on it by
estimating how many extra years can be gained through a healthy diet.
To crunch the numbers, Yanling Lv at Huazhong University of
Science and Technology in China, along with her colleagues, analyzed data from
more than 100,000 UK Biobank participants. This is a large-scale database
containing in-depth genetic and health information from half a million
volunteers. They tracked the study's subjects for just over 10 years by giving
them regular surveys asking what they had consumed during the previous 24
hours.
Five best diets
The team gave each participant a score based on how closely
their meals matched five validated
healthy diets: a Mediterranean diet (rich in healthy fats, fish, and
vegetables), the Diabetes Risk Reduction Diet (high-fiber and low-sugar foods),
the DASH (dietary approaches to stop hypertension) Diet, a plant-based diet,
and the AHEI (Alternative Healthy Eating Index). Additionally, the researchers
scored participants' DNA for 19 genetic
variants associated with longevity.
Tamar Abrams had a lousy couple of years in 2022 and ’23. Both her parents died; a relationship ended; she retired from communications consulting. She moved from Arlington, Virginia, to Warren, Rhode Island, where she knew all of two people.
“I was kind of a mess,” recalled Abrams, 69. Trying to cope, “I was eating myself into oblivion.” As her weight hit 270 pounds and her blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose levels climbed, “I knew I was in trouble health-wise.”
What came to mind? “Oh, oh, oh, Ozempic!” — the tuneful ditty from television commercials that promoted the GLP-1 medication for diabetes. The ads also pointed out that patients who took it lost weight.
Abrams remembered the commercials as “joyful” and sometimes found herself humming the jingle. They depicted Ozempic-takers cooking omelets, repairing bikes, playing pickleball — “doing everyday activities, but with verve,” she said. “These people were enjoying the hell out of life.”
So, just as such ads often urge, even though she had never been diagnosed with diabetes, she asked her doctor if Ozempic was right for her.
Small wonder Abrams recalled those ads. Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Ozempic, spent an estimated $180 million in direct-to-consumer advertising in 2022 and $189 million in 2023, according to MediaRadar, which monitors advertising.
By last year, the sum — including radio and TV commercials, billboards, and print and digital ads — had reached an estimated $201 million, and total spending on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs topped $9 billion, by MediaRadar’s calculations.
Novo Nordisk declined to address those numbers.
Should it be legal to market drugs directly to potential patients? This controversy, which has simmered for decades, has begun receiving renewed attention from both the Trump administration and legislators.
.webp)
.webp)
