Those who have handled a semiautomatic rifle of the sort used in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shootings on Feb. 14 know that these are not ordinary weapons. Their power is unmistakable; an errant shot striking a small tree will go through that tree and the one behind that, and so on. A shot striking a human body will result in a cascading wave of force, crushing tissue and making recovery difficult for anyone who manages to survive the instant, massive bleeding or organ damage.

Outside of law enforcement and military use, these guns have no purpose during peacetime, other than to satisfy the puerile thrill of owning and shooting them and, often, posting pictures of oneself displaying them on social media. Target shooting can be accomplished with far less potentially lethal weaponry and there are better options for hunting and for self-defense, if that is ever really a necessity. 

Gun lobby activists and the politicians they support have tried to shift the discussion following the mass shootings to questions about mental health and, in the case of schools, arming teachers, coaches, administrators, and support staff. This is a deliberate smokescreen put up to obscure the real issue: There are too many guns in the United States, and those capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of minutes are scarcely regulated, if at all. A similar smokescreen has been raised about changing the age at which someone can buy a gun. Arguing that because Americans can be sent to war at 18 they should be able to handle an automatic weapon at home is a false equivalent.

In the military, training comes first, then 18-year-olds are armed for the precise reason that they may someday be asked to kill other human beings — under supervision and on the field of battle. To use military service as justification for allowing the same powerful guns among an untrained civilian population is wrong. Then, too, arguing about whether people under 21 should be allowed to possess assault rifles without even the same regulation imposed on pistol owners in most states misses the point that high-powered weapons must, at a minimum, be strongly regulated. 

Like the debate about whether teachers and school personnel should be armed, the question of what is an appropriate age to be able to buy a gun obscures the real problem — that there are too many guns in this country and they are too easy to obtain.

The sale and possession of semiautomatic rifles should immediately be regulated at least as tightly as pistol ownership in the most restrictive states, such as New York, if not banned altogether. Lives are at risk. The longer America delays meaningful and effective gun control, the more killing there will be. No arming of teachers or age limit on who may buy dangerous firearms will change that.

There is a numbing ubiquity to plastic water bottles, despite their general pointlessness and woeful environmental impact. We were reminded of this by a photograph taken at a recent Springs School Board meeting, which showed one Nestlé Pure Life 16.9-ounce water bottle placed in front of each member’s seat. The Springs School Board is hardly the only group at which water in plastic is seen; plastic bottles were deployed at a League of Women Voters candidates’ debate, as they are at many public and private events.

Recycling plastics is known to be worthwhile, but the statistics are not encouraging. According to an academic study last year, nearly 80 percent of the plastics manufactured ends up in landfills or in the environment at large. Health studies have suggested that certain plastics can mimic estrogen as they degrade. Some leach compounds that have been linked to asthma, heart problems, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer. Environmentalists also recommend the use of certified water filters to reduce the chance of exposure to water from the tap.

The Springs School, as with the League of Women Voters and other public and private entities, could help by setting an example of refusing to supply bottled water at their events. Another school, Montauk, has been a leader in this, with a successful fourth-grade effort to get businesses to give up serving drinks with plastic straws. East Hampton Town and Village have banned single-use plastic bags, and a new Suffolk law encourages grocery customers to supply their own bags or pay a 5-cent fee. 

The Springs School’s dozen or so water bottles might not seem worth worrying about, but they are part of what advocates say is a growing crisis. Already, a million plastic bottles change hands each minute around the world, and the shocking number is growing. According to The Guardian newspaper, enough plastic bottles are now sold in a year to reach halfway to the sun if stacked end to end. Some of the world’s discarded plastic ends up in the food chain. 

Schools, above all, should seek to set examples of good stewardship of the planet. Ending the practice of supplying wasteful plastic bottles at meetings is one way to help spread the message that even the smallest steps can make a difference.

Along the East Coast, we thought we already had this fight settled. Now, after the Trump administration opened almost all United States federal waters to oil exploration and drilling, the battle to protect the oceans, as well as to slow global warming, must be taken to another level. 

Last week, the Trump administration announced that oil and gas companies could again begin work on more than a billion acres of ocean in the Arctic and off the Eastern Seaboard, reversing President Obama’s ban. The move was widely anticipated, at least since Ryan Zinke, a Montana congressman, climate change skeptic, and oil pipeline company board member, was appointed secretary of the interior last year. It also comes shortly after the Trump White House relaxed safety rules put in place after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil platform disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, from which the region is still recovering at a cost of billions.

Fearing for his own political future in a divided congressional district, Representative Lee Zeldin, an early Trump supporter, quickly distanced himself from the offshore oil decision after it was announced. However, for Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to have any real effect, he should be willing to stand up to the White House on other priorities until meaningful protections for the nation’s coastlines are assured.

The direct costs of offshore oil are potentially massive. In 2010, the Deepwater blowout fouled more than 1,000 miles of coast in one of the worst environmental catastrophes in history. Losses in the gulf commercial and recreational fishing industries ran more than an estimated $1.5 billion for the first eight months alone after the spill began. The environmental effects were immediate and have continued to the present day, including the devastation of protective mangroves and breeding areas. Sea life remains challenged, with ongoing marine mammal deaths, though the long-term effects are only now beginning to be understood.

Along the East Coast, one of the areas long sought by oil and gas companies is Georges Banks, one of the most productive fishing areas in the region. Fossil fuel extraction there would come at great risk, from both sonic exploration and spills. Returning to oil as a national priority would also be a step in the wrong direction. 

Already, safer, less-polluting natural gas and land-based production have increased massively, calling into question the urgency of offshore development anyway. For eastern Long Island, the economy largely depends on its beaches — and commercial fishing stands alone as the only major industry not directly linked to resort and second-home business activities. A major spill here would crush both.

Then there is the overarching effect on the planet itself. Oil, like its cousin coal, is one of the key sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which cause global warming. The shift away from fossil fuels toward renewables, including offshore wind turbines, as well as demand reduction, is the only responsible course for the seas and the Earth. It is unfortunate that the Trump administration has listened only to industry in opening the nation’s coasts to oil instead of taking the long view and doing what is right for all of us.

It is safe to say that few people like the sound of leaf blowers, unless, of course, they are in the property-care business, and then they sound like money. That conflict is at the core of a renewed call for limits, which are now under consideration by the East Hampton Village Board. Residents want less noise, especially on weekends when they are likely to be most irritated by the vexing on-and-off buzz; landscapers say that their work is all but impossible without them.

There is no doubt that the powerful blowers are effective. A few blasts and a difficult-to-rake gravel driveway looks as tidy as the grounds of Buckingham Palace. A single user can clear a leaf-strewn lawn in no time and quickly move on to the next job. That last point is key: If a work crew can tend more properties in a day using loud, polluting, gas-powered devices, there is a strong financial incentive to do so, the effect on air quality and neighbors’ sanity notwithstanding.

There have been efforts before to limit landscaping blowers and other noisy machines. Both East Hampton Town and Village have set hours for outdoor work of almost any kind, and from time to time a contractor or garbage collector is rewarded with a fine for showing up too early in the day. From the continued complaints, however, it is clear that these measures have failed to solve the problem. 

Residents’ expectation of peace and quiet in and around their homes is reasonable, and it is up to government to take the lead in providing it. Left to their bottom-line interests, landscapers and property-care companies will generally opt for the most effective machinery, with noise and air quality a lesser concern. However, if blowers are banned, particularly those with noise outputs above a certain level, the landscapers will figure out how to make a go of it, as they did before the blasted things were invented in the first place. If there is still money to be made taking care of leaves, someone will figure out how to do it, blowers or no.

The East Hampton Town Board got down to early 2018 business on Tuesday, doing routine housekeeping and appointing members of various boards and committees. Up soon on their agenda will be choosing someone to fill Peter Van Scoyoc’s councilman’s seat for a year, now that he is supervisor. A special election will be held in November, with the winner serving what would have been the last year of Mr. Van Scoyoc’s term.

Plenty of able candidates might be found among the local Democratic Party ranks to fill the vacancy. Mr. Van Scoyoc and the others on the board are all Democrats, and naming someone from within the family, so to speak, would be an obvious choice. It might not be the right one, however. 

Paul Giardina ran unsuccessfully for town board in November as a Republican and he received 2,464 votes, coming in third behind Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and Jeffrey Bragman. Seating him would be a bridge-building nod to his supporters and to party members who now are otherwise left out at Town Hall. 

If voters did not like what they saw in Mr. Giardina by next fall, they could send him on his way. In the meantime, the town would gain a seasoned public official who is not afraid to ask hard questions when hard questions are needed.

The Trump administration’s announcement this week of high trade tariffs on imported solar panels and components continues his war on sensible energy policy and threatens a United States industry that employs as many as 260,000 Americans. The move was anticipated and is consistent with the Interior Department’s recent decision to open many of the country’s coastal waters to oil exploitation.

On Monday, the Trump administration said it would impose a 30-percent tax on solar panels from China in response to what it said was the dumping of below-market-value solar equipment. The White House move also helps prop up the faltering coal industry, which has had a difficult time competing with cheaper fuels, like natural gas, wind, and, yes, solar.

In the long term, domestic panel manufacturers could see gains, but a solar industry group said that 23,000 U.S. jobs would be lost this year alone. The huge growth in the residential use of solar energy has been attributed to the falling cost of imported panels. Take that away, and consumer demand falls, too.

For solar installers, including several on the East End, the tariffs will force prices up. This is likely to depress demand, especially since the generous utility rebates that drove consumer enthusiasm a few years ago have expired and generally have not been renewed. 

Large scale wind-power generation, like the project planned for a site east of Montauk, is near the top of the U.S.’s renewable energy portfolio over all. However, solar home systems remain an important potential source of electricity on the South Fork, especially in summer, when demand skyrockets. Putting unnecessary impediments in the path of those who would like to move away from fossil fuels is a grave mistake.

With the looming threat of climate change — observed here on the East End in the accelerating rate of coastal erosion due to sea level rise — every possible step toward an energy future that is more dependent on renewables is a step that is needed. 

A week or so after the second act of the women’s marches in cities and communities large and small across the country, questions remain: Do they matter, and where does the moment go from here?

The total number of participants in the rallies held on Jan. 20 from Maine to Alaska is guesswork, but two academic researchers estimated that, at minimum, 1.6 million or up to 2.5 million people took part. This is about half the estimated turnout for the inaugural marches in 2017, but still. On the South Fork, a march held in Sag Harbor on Jan. 20 drew a crowd in excess of 500, so large that many of those at the edges of the assembly near the foot of Long Wharf could scarcely make out what Suffolk Legislator Bridget Fleming and other speakers were saying.

Such widespread demonstrations of support for a political cause, albeit one that it is hard to define, deserved more attention than it got in many national media outlets. Amid the Russia election investigation and President Trump’s sedate trip to the Davos billionaire’s conference in Switzerland, the press noted the number of marches and quickly moved on. Such is the nature of the warp-speed news cycles these days. But, thinking all the way back a week and a half, as well as recalling the many protests large and small against the Trump administration’s policies and the president’s unfortunate Twitter habit, it seems a sustained movement is underway.

That so many have waved signs and taken public action for more than a year is noteworthy. Their enthusiasm seems to have taken hold and helped galvanize Democrats. This is likely to be the marches’ most important effect.

Representative Lee Zeldin of New York’s First Congressional District is not alone in coming under near-constant needling, online and at public appearances and his Long Island office. His seat will be contested in the November election, and while there appears to be little interest among Republicans in forcing a primary, there already are six declared candidates for the Democratic nomination.

Often in American elections, the outcome is decided not by how people vote but by how many bother to take time from their day to go to the polls or fill out absentee ballots — by who is motivated enough to put down the remote and get up off the sofa, so to speak. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the motivation meter is tilting toward the Democratic Party, which is, to a large degree, because people have taken to the streets and are likely to stay there.

Tuesday’s State of the Union speech probably did little to change the political map for 2018. The old fear-mongering about immigrants was there, if tempered from last year’s “American carnage.” Mr. Trump was notably silent on the #MeToo movement — and sexual harassment in general. This is hardly surprising, considering that he is said to have carried on an extramarital affair while his current wife was pregnant with their child, and it was his own recorded “grab ’em by the pussy” remark that led to the now-iconic hats of the same name and arguably to a force that could change the course of history. 

November is really only a few short months away. There is no reason to doubt Americans will stay engaged until Election Day and beyond.

The East Hampton Town Board’s 3-to-1 vote last week to appoint David Lys to fill the slot vacated when Peter Van Scoyoc moved on to supervisor gets our qualified support. Mr. Lys, a Springs resident who is 41, will serve as a town councilman until the end of the year; beyond that it will be up to him and East Hampton voters if he chooses to run in the November election for the final year of the term.

What we know about Mr. Lys so far is not all that much, although it is positive. He is committed to public service, having been on the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals since 2013 and taken a leadership role in Citizens for Access Rights, which advocates four-wheel drive vehicle use of public beaches. He also has been a leader in the restoration of the Amagansett Life-Saving and Coast Guard Station. Where he stands on key issues facing East Hampton is less clear.

Councilman Jeff Bragman, the newest member of the board, voted against Mr. Lys’s appointment, hinting at differences over the airport, immigration, and the zoning code. These may turn out to be major concerns, but on a five-person board the effect might be minimal. Given that the public knows little about Mr. Lys’s overall views, however, it is good that, should he wish to stay on beyond December, he will have to campaign and ask the electorate for its blessing. He will have a year’s record to stand, or fall, on.

But in putting Mr. Lys forward, the Democratic town board members other than Mr. Bragman made a curious decision in another way: They had a chance to name a first-ever female majority but failed to seize it. At a time when gender equality and sexual harassment is at the top of the news, not selecting a woman for the post — among whom there were a number of qualified options — seems tone-deaf, especially when a Republican man who had never run for elected office was their ultimate choice.

The East Hampton Town Board is poised tonight to approve an up-to-99-year lease for a Southampton Hospital-run emergency facility on land it owns off Pantigo Road in East Hampton. Given a number of unanswered — and even unasked — questions, the anticipated board action appears overhasty.

According to a hospital spokeswoman, even the basics of what would be built on the property have not yet been worked out; there is not even so much as an artist’s rendering. This means that at the public hearing tonight, at 6:30, the town board will be asked to make a nearly century-long commitment based only on verbal descriptions of what might be built there. Such a commitment would be an irresponsible example of how to manage public properties.

What is known so far is not much at all. A Little League ball field and a parking lot occupy the 4.5-acre property, which is zoned for parks and conservation. They would be replaced by a 54,000-square-foot building housing emergency treatment and diagnosis rooms and a pharmacy, as well as offices for primary care doctors and specialists. The town’s Planning Department looked at the property and reportedly found it less suitable than another site under consideration, on Stephen Hand’s Path.

As proposed, the hospital adjunct would be a shockingly large building for a town that defines commercial structures over 15,000 square feet as “superstores.” The traffic it would create would almost certainly make a stoplight at the Pantigo Road intersection necessary, adding to an already difficult section of Route 27. Workers and patients would in effect be helping to provide the commercial development of the site, which would then lower zoning standards on adjacent properties. And for what: a satellite of a hospital that itself is a satellite of the major treatment center in Stony Brook, where patients with the most serious conditions would continue to be flown by helicopter. 

The public rationale for the Pantigo Place site is that an emergency room someplace in East Hampton Town will be important after Southampton Hospital eventually moves to a new facility on County Road 39. That is true, but the relatively small property being considered tonight does not appear to be the best choice. 

Some emergency medical personnel have expressed the opinion that Stephen Hand’s Path would be a better location, serving a greater number of people by drawing patients from Sag Harbor and Bridgehampton in addition to East Hampton, Amagansett, Springs, and Montauk. Given the choice, ambulance drivers would head toward where the highest level of care could be found, not away from it by diverting to Pantigo Place.

Underpinning the decision about where to site an East Hampton facility is that the hospital seeks a high-visibility site in order to maximize donations. Indeed, of the estimated $38 million the facility would cost, less than a third has been promised in state funding; much of the rest would have to come from private contributions. Were it built off in the woods somewhere, the facility would be less likely to get a fat check from, say, the comedian Jerry Seinfeld, who has a house less than a mile away from Pantigo Place, as do any number of other 1-percenters.

Given all these questions, and more, the East Hampton Town Board must hold off and know a great deal more about the hospital’s plans before it hands over the Pantigo Place property for almost 100 years.

The most important work in the recent push to improve water quality on the South Fork has been done not by local government, but by a private organization, Concerned Citizens of Montauk, which has taken a science-first approach for more than four years. This is in sharp contrast to the elected officials in East Hampton and Southampton Towns, who have required expensive nitrogen-reducing septic systems for new houses without knowing for sure if they will result in measurable improvement for the environment.

One part of gauging success is knowing what the conditions are at the start. So far, none of our local government boards has embarked on meaningful data collection in the marine environment. Consider that. So far, the empirical information, which comes from a state program, actually shows nitrogen levels well below that considered harmful by the Peconic Estuary Program. Pio Lombardo, a consultant who is the architect of East Hampton Town’s water strategy, dismisses the state results, saying the handful of saltwater test sites were in the wrong locations. He might be right, but he might be wrong. The fact is, no one knows. Yet.

C.C.O.M. stands alone, having been committed to testing many South Fork waters for fecal bacteria for years in partnership with the Surfrider Foundation’s Blue Water Task Force. Several of the sample sites have consistently shown elevated bacteria levels, some in the dangerous range for human contact. Embarrassed officials have pretended that the C.C.O.M. program did not matter and have done nothing in response.

Now, C.C.O.M., working with the United States Geological Survey, has convinced East Hampton Town to come on board in baseline testing of pollutants in Lake Montauk. The data will help define water quality problems and put a system in place to monitor potential improvement. This approach must be expanded, ideally to the entire Peconic Estuary.