Do personal green lifestyle choices distract from commitment to address bigger issues?

Scientists put the “recycling is a distraction” claim to the test

University of New South Wales

Recycling, greener diets, and other personal climate choices do not seem to distract people from supporting major environmental reforms. A four-year study of nearly 2,800 Australians found that these habits neither increased nor reduced later political engagement. 

Behavioral scientists from UNSW Sydney and Griffith University have found no evidence that personal climate-friendly choices reduce people's interest in broader action on climate change.

The research, published on July 23, followed nearly 2,800 Australians over four years as part of the National Climate Action Survey. Participants who recycled, used reusable cups and containers, took public transportation, ate greener diets, or cycled to work were no less likely to support wider climate policies and collective action.

The findings challenge a common argument that governments and businesses promote small lifestyle changes to shift attention away from more difficult reforms, such as transforming energy systems and regulating industry.

"Individual climate actions neither facilitate nor undermine broader climate engagement," says lead author Dr. Omid Ghasemi from the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response.

"We found no evidence for the idea that personal action might reduce collective action or policy support because people feel they've done enough, overestimate the impact of individual actions, or feel less worried about climate change," he says.

Rather than changing people's political behavior, everyday environmental choices may mainly reflect values they already hold. The researchers found that these actions were neither a trigger nor a barrier to greater public engagement.

In a close vote, Charlestown voters approve Chariho land deal

Almost 900 voted; 50 votes made the difference

By Will Collette

The Chariho School District plans to consolidate its three aging elementary schools into one campus. That plan advanced when Charlestown voters approved a deal that would make the existing Charlestown Elementary School the site for the new unified school.

The vote was 454 YES votes versus 404 NO votes.

If voters in all three towns approve the $116 million bond proposal that will appear on the November 3 General Election ballot, the project will move on to construction that will involve a choreographed construction plan to avoid disrupting the kids’ education.

Charlestown produced a special edition of The Pipeline to provide details about the proposed school project. CLICK HERE.

For those of you wondering about the cost, it’s not out of line. In Rhode Island, average elementary school construction runs at around $580 per square foot. The cost rises to $650 per square foot for high schools. A year ago, it cost nearly $100 million to build an elementary school, but construction costs have soared in 2026 due to inflation driven by tariffs and labor shortages.

Roughly 65% of the construction costs will be covered by the state.

The plan for a unified elementary school arose as the alternative to building new schools in each town, a proposal that voters rejected in 2024.

Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records

Perverting privacy protections for Trump's agenda

By Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir

A tiny federal agency tasked with protecting the public from injuries caused by lawn mowers and coffeemakers is demanding that some of the nation’s biggest health systems turn over detailed, personally identifiable medical records of all patients who seek help at their emergency rooms.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, responsible for tracking and issuing recalls of dangerous products sold in the U.S., began discreetly pressuring hospital executives this year to share personally identifiable health data with a private contractor. 

But hospital lawyers and other industry experts have questioned the agency’s authority to collect, its ability to safeguard such a swath of sensitive information, and whether it has followed the legal process to overhaul its surveillance system.

After KFF Health News asked the CPSC about the new system, the agency announced the program on July 21. Left unmentioned, however, is the alarm it has raised among hospital executives, as well as the nature and extent of the agency’s data demands.

In a stark departure from its product-focused mission, the agency’s goal is to obtain millions of Americans’ medical records from emergency room visits for most injuries, from a broken bone to a childhood vaccine reaction or even a suicide attempt, according to documents and emails obtained by KFF Health News, as well as interviews with five people involved or familiar with the discussions.

A CPSC official also insisted in the emails that the institutions provide all ER patients’ identifiable information — such as names, addresses, diagnoses, and other personal details — to the contractor, Konza Health, for analysis. In correspondence with hospital executives, Konza representatives described participation as “mandatory” or “required.”

As a condition of viewing the correspondence, KFF Health News agreed not to republish some of the emails it obtained.

The CPSC wants at least 100 hospitals to start sending detailed medical records by the end of this year, according to an internal memo.

“The whole thing is troubling,” said Sharona Hoffman, a professor of health law at Case Western Reserve University who noted that giving a private entity access to a sweeping collection of data will introduce risks to patient privacy. “If this company really is collecting identifiable information, that is worrisome for patients.”

Trump Unveils Sweeping New Tariffs Expected to Cost Americans $100 Billion a Year

Trump uses bogus claims to continue to impose a national sales tax on Americans

Jake Johnson

On July 23, Donald Trump  unveiled a new package of tariffs targeting 60 countries that account for over 99% of US imports, a move that—if upheld in court—would cost Americans an estimated $100 billion per year in the form of higher costs.

The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were announced as part of Trump's effort to maneuver around repeated court rulings against his sweeping tariffs, including by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court. Jamieson Greer, the Trump administration’s top trade official, pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the new tariffs, introduced with the purported goal of penalizing countries “for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

Observers questioned the administration’s pretext. “Magically, the US tariff probe on forced labor practices is done perfectly in time to replace the generalized but expiring Section 122 tariffs,” noted Bloomberg’s Josh Wingrove, referring to the legal authority Trump cited for earlier tariffs.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) acknowledged that “Section 301 is a law Congress passed,” but added, “What was passed in 1974 was authority to respond to specific unfair trade practices after investigation.”

“What is being done with it now is a tariff on 99% of American trade, set by Trump, with no expiration, no vote, and no ceiling,” said Levin. “If a delegation that broad is lawful, then the tariff power in Article I means very little. The Supreme Court struck down the last version of this policy in February. The response was to avoid Congress and find a different statute and rebuild substantially the same tariffs, effective the same minute the old ones lapsed.”

The list of countries targeted by the Section 301 tariffs includes Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.

Between the start of his second administration and January 2026, Trump’s tariffs cost American families $1,700 each on average as importers passed burdens onto consumers in the form of higher prices. The tariffs have also hammered small businesses, increased hardship for farmers, and failed to arrest the decline of American manufacturing jobs.

Smokescreen

 

Join Senator Jack Reed to help re-elect Rep. Tina Spears

 

NEWS FROM THE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR TINA SPEARS

JULY 2026

You're Invited Saturday, August 8th

Join Tina and guest Senator Jack Reed

RSVP

FRIENDS,   Representing District 36 has been one of the great privileges of my life, and I'm asking for your help to keep doing this work together.   I'm thrilled that Senator Jack Reed will join us to kick off our efforts to Get Out The Vote and train volunteers for Election Day.   This September's primary will decide what comes next. I can't do it without you. Come join us for lunch, meet your neighbors and find out what you can do to help. No experience required, just bring yourself (and maybe a friend).   VOLUNTEER EVENT 12:30-1:30 Snacks and Beverages 1:30-2:00 PM Hear from Senator Jack Reed 2:00-3:00 PM Volunteer Training 3:00-5:00 PM Canvassing   RSVP Here. Location provided upon RSVP   Can't wait to see you there,

Get your yard sign! Contact Tina at tina@tinaspearsri.com or call Kathleen 401 439 4469 to get yours!

If you'd like to donate to Tina's re-eelction campaign, please make personal checks payable to: The Friends of Tina Spears 82 Hillside Drive Charlestown, RI 02813   Or click HERE to contribute online or scan the QR code

Want to volunteer on Tina's re-election campaign? Contact us here. We have lots of fun and we'll keep Tina in the State House!

Get our latest updates!

Add your email... Subscribe

State law prohibits the acceptance of any corporate or business checks. Only individuals and RI registered PACs may contribute. RI law requires contributors to note place of employment. Contributions are limited to $2,000 per person per calendar year, and are not tax-deductible.

Key September 9 Democratic Primary match-up in Narragansett pits progressive incumbent versus LORIB DINO

Two Narragansett neighbors live separate lives on policy

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

Editor’s note: This is the first in a six-part series on state legislative races, chosen based on expected competitiveness between candidates and relevant issues to the district. Of the 113 seats in the Rhode Island General Assembly, all of which are elected every two years, 22 have primaries in September.

Sen. Alana DiMario and her Democratic primary challenger, Mark Mesrobian, live less than a third of a mile apart on the same street in Narragansett.

But the Tupelo Trail neighbors are miles apart in ideology and policy priorities for Senate District 36.

About District 36 

Represented by Sen. Alana DiMario since 2020

Geography: Includes part of North Kingstown, Narragansett, New Shoreham

Population: 29,000, 22,513 registered voters

Partisan breakdown: 56% independent, 29% Democrat, 14% Republican

Demographics: Median age: 49.1; 92% white; $103,982 median household income (2024)

DiMario was first elected in 2020, part of a band of progressive candidates that arrived on Smith Hill that year. A licensed mental health counselor and former chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Agriculture, DiMario, 47, has led the way on state laws to preserve farm and forestland while promoting solar development, increasing access to affordable mental health services and childcare, and securing state funding for a pilot public transit program for people with disabilities. She’s not done.

“I have unfinished work to do,” DiMario said, rattling off mental healthcare issues, coastal protections and infrastructure constraints that require water bans in Narragansett every summer as examples. “The range of issues I become involved with, that are brought to my attention by my constituents, and advocates, just keep adding to the to-do list.”

By contrast, Mesrobian sums up his platform in a single word: business. A serial entrepreneur whose current business involves wholesale and direct-to-consumer eyewear — he also serves as general manager of the Bonnet Shores Beach Club — Merobian sees an unmet need in the business community.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Like Charlestown's state Rep. Tina Spears, Sen. DiMario is being primaried by a "Democrat in Name Only (DINO)" who is bankrolled by right-wing MAGA nut Dave Levesque. Levesque set up 40 political action committees, 39 of them supposedly representing each RI municipality, to evade state restrictions on PAC donations. In reality, these "local" PACs are all run by Levesque to promote his MAGA agenda. In South County, nearly every Democratic woman legislator is being targeted. Read more about the LORIB attack by clicking HERE. - Will Collette

Worden Pond invasive weeds will be chemically treated on Friday

DEM says treatment will affect nothing but the weeds

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) announces that Worden Pond in South Kingstown will be treated for the invasive aquatic plant hydrilla on Friday, August 7, with periodic repeated treatments through November. 

These treatments will not harm fish and will not impact boating, fishing, or swimming. The EPA-approved herbicide treatments will target hydrilla, which was first found in the pond in 2023. 

Worden Pond is RI’s largest natural lake at 1,098 acres and is popular for fishing, boating, and paddlecraft. The treatments for this federally designated noxious weed are funded by Congressionally Directed Spending secured by Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  

How Trump’s “America First” Administration Could Shut U.S. Scientists Out of the Next Nobel-Worthy Discovery

Trump doesn't care as long as it doesn't affect his chances of getting the Nobel Peace Prize

By Lisa Song for ProPublica

For decades, physicists wrestled with a fundamental mystery of the universe.

They wanted to know why certain particles — like the protons in atoms — have mass, while particles of light do not. Whatever the reason was, it was crucial to understanding the origins of planets, galaxies and life itself.

The leading theory stated that particles got their mass from interacting with an invisible field, later dubbed the Higgs field, but no one had ever been able to prove it existed.

Doing so would require one of the most ambitious international collaborations in scientific history. Starting decades ago, thousands of scientists from dozens of countries worked side by side, even though some of their nations considered one another adversaries. The United States contributed a quarter of the workforce and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

The investment paid off in 2012, when the team detected the so-called “God particle” or Higgs boson, confirming the half-century-old Higgs field theory. The achievement was so significant that two of the physicists behind the theory won the Nobel Prize.

Under a new rule proposed by the Trump administration, American scientists might be forced to watch similar discoveries from the sidelines. The proposal would restrict international collaboration and give political appointees the ability to decide the most important research to fund, and the power to pull the plug at any time, for any reason.

As soon as he learned about the proposal, one of the U.S. scientists who took part in the landmark project rushed to file his objection with the federal government.

“These experiments take decades to build and require sustained, cooperative international investment,” University of Chicago physics professor David W. Miller wrote in a public comment. “The experiments will continue, without American leadership. … The United States will not just fall behind. It will step aside.”

The rule’s implications reach far beyond physics. Proposed by the Office of Management and Budget, a little-known but powerful part of the White House that guides federal spending, it would give the administration’s political appointees across dozens of federal agencies significant discretion over how grants are awarded and terminated. The appointees don’t have to know anything about science or the subjects of the grants they’re reviewing.

Russell Vought, who runs the office and has made expanding presidential control over federal spending one of his signature goals, has put the philosophy into practice over the past two years, helping to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development and, in another controversial move, blocking funds already allocated by Congress. Vought’s decision last year to cancel 284 Department of Energy grants drew renewed criticism after an agency lawyer recently admitted in court records that the terminations were “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” — in other words, blue states.