That the East Hampton School District might radically overhaul its entire energy and heating approach is intriguing news. If the school board signs on, Johnson Controls, a leading national firm, would install 634-kilowatts of solar panels atop the district’s three schools. It would also improve the way oil is burned for heating, decrease heat loss and gain in classroom windows, and seek to make doors more airtight. The heating systems in the three buildings would have better insulation and power-wasting light fixtures would be replaced. 

The cost, $4.8 million, would cut about $366,000 annually from the district’s energy bills. And Johnson Controls has said the district might save even more money as traditional energy costs increase over time. While it is difficult to know the future — who could have predicted oil at $36 a barrel? — the company’s track record appears solid, as does its relationship with other schools in the region. 

One aspect of the proposal, the dismissal of wind power as part of the district’s electrical generation portfolio, however, seems worth revisiting. The stated reason for the omission, that the payback period of 18 years or more for turbines is too long, is odd when the company’s paperwork describes solar as taking nearly that long to break even. School board members should press the firm on this. The Long Lane high school property would seem ideal for wind generation, as several nearby businesses have demonstrated. Moreover, because the wind blows vigorously in the low-light shorter days of winter, wind generation would seem an obvious way to further reduce the district’s dependence on the grid. 

Moving the district toward energy independence and, by reducing its use of electricity generated by fossil fuels, cutting down on its carbon footprint, while saving money, is an admirable goal. Let’s hope it becomes a reality.

Come January and February —  and, come to think of it, March — when the days are cold and the nights colder, cultural events are few and far between. This isn’t really surprising; half the year-round population of the South Fork is in Florida or Rincon, Puerto Rico, and the other half doesn’t feel like leaving the house. Yet for those motivated to put on an overcoat and venture out, there are options. 

Quogue has theater, Sag Harbor and Amagansett have rock and country music, Southampton can be depended on for group artist exhibits and free classical music, Bridgehampton has artists and writers nights at a restaurant from time to time as well as live music, Guild Hall has staged theatrical readings and broadcasts of live theater from Great Britain as well as the Metropolitan Opera, and there is always something doing at the Parrish Art Museum and Robert Wilson’s Watermill Center. Nevertheless, the off-season can some weeks feel like a drought.

One thing we find ourselves wondering as winter sets in for real is whether there is an audience here for small events despite the weather. Could small “black-box” theater performances fill enough seats to justify the effort? What about a spoken-word series? How big would the turnout have to be for an event to be judged a success? And would free beer or coffee be necessary to sweeten the deal? Count us among those who would be eager to find out. At least parking won’t be a problem.

For East Hampton Town officials, these are the easy days, but January and February’s quiet pace will soon yield to frenetic spring preparations for the season to come. Then it will be summer 2016, which, if last year’s experience is any guide, will be busier and crazier than before. Despite a public uprising in July in which hundreds of people at an overflowing meeting at the Montauk Firehouse begged the town board to do something, anything, there is much work left to do.

 An unfortunate truth about East Hampton Town policy is that for three busy months, officials have to hustle to keep up with the demands, but then, once September comes around, the pressure dissipates and doing something to head off the next season’s troubles loses urgency.

On the plus side, the town board added additional enforcement power to the coming year’s budget. It banned parking near the Surf Lodge, which has been a perennial source of public frustration in Montauk. And it created a new registration process for property rentals with a goal of improving landlords’ compliance with existing limits. All in all, these are worthwhile measures, but, unfortunately, they do not go far enough toward shifting us back toward the way most residents would like it to be — and we dare say most folks would like it to be clean, quiet, and easy to get around, hardly the way anyone would describe the peak season last year.

East Hampton should not be Party Town U.S.A.; none of the current town board members would say that it is. Still, we cannot escape the notion that a hands-off approach still holds sway. Think for a moment if any of the commercial excesses that draw hundreds of partyers each weekend night between Memorial Day and Labor Day popped up in East Hampton Village; they would be shut down in a second. So what, one might ask, is different about the town? Town officials seem to spend almost as much time making excuses about what they cannot do for one reason or another than about what they actually can accomplish.

After the July outcry, the town tried to get serious, dispatching additional police officers to Montauk for late-night crowd control, for example. And Supervisor Larry Cantwell at the time even mused out loud about phasing out some nightclubs. That was an intriguing idea, but nothing has been heard of it since. It should be resurrected.

Yes, the East Hampton Town Board has a lot to deal with. But no, its members should not get a free pass when it comes to protecting and improving residents’ quality of life. Those who live here, pay taxes here, and love it here must always come first. Controlling the forces that are turning the town into a place few of us find attractive should not be an afterthought, even in the year’s coldest, dimmest months. The time to get busy is now.

Since its start, the Y.M.C.A. East Hampton Recenter has never quite seemed to get it right. Now, amid renewed concerns about respiratory ailments some say are caused by an inadequate ventilation system, the time may at last have arrived to get serious about changes.

 The RECenter is an odd hybrid, owned by the Town of East Hampton and yet run by a private organization under contract. Taxpayers contribute about $600,000 annually for its upkeep; Y memberships fund the rest. In some ways, this leaves no one really in charge; not the town board, not the out-of-town Y.M.C.A. bureaucracy.

 Aside from questions about air circulation or lack therof, the RECenter is far less appealing than other facilities in the tristate area, notably, the well-appointed S.Y.S., the Southampton Youth Services Recreation Center. Troubles at the East Hampton site are indicated by its crowded workout area, threadbare sofas that look as if they were frat house rejects, and often filthy floors and shower drains, particularly in the cramped women’s locker room. And then there is the continuing tension about just which user groups the place is supposed to be for: youth, for whom it was originally built, or adults, just there for a workout.

The town recently committed $750,000 for repairs at the RECenter, an indication of the scale of the problems, perhaps. But when all things are tallied, this is just a beginning. An honest conversation among all involved, and the public, is overdue about the facility’s direction, leadership, and, ultimately, if an entirely new approach is needed.

With this edition, The East Hampton Star celebrates its 130th anniversary. Much has changed about the communities The Star covers since its first 500 copies were published on Dec. 26, 1885, but much remains the same.

From the early days, East Hampton has always been an interesting place to live, and, as we say in the newsroom — just report on it and you can’t help but have an interesting newspaper. This isn’t entirely fair, of course. The Star’s success has always depended on the dedication and effort of its staff and contributors, as well as a healthy dose of what we like to call institutional knowledge.

When The Star was established, East Hampton was largely a farming and fishing town, though a rising tide of summer visitors was beginning to put it on the map. Then, as now, obituaries were a key part of the newspaper’s identity. Over time, attention has grown to include police news, balanced by accounts of the good works of townspeople, and by the opinions expressed in letters to the editor. Friction between new and old, and between the environment and the demands people put on it, have become a su/btext to almost every story that makes the front page.

Today, like so many other news organizations, The Star faces continually shifting challenges. Still, the mission of holding up an honest mirror to East Hampton and the surrounding hamlets and villages remains intact, whether its readers get their news from the print edition or in one of The Star’s digital forms. Throughout its history, The Star’s role has been to help the community know itself — and it will continue to be so. We thank you for reading.

A little-noticed aspect in the debate about East Hampton Town’s newly approved landlords’ registry is that even after it goes into effect in February, the town’s rental laws will remain among the most generous on eastern Long Island.

You would hardly have thought so if you were to have judged solely from the protests at Town Hall by those who have openly embraced illegal practices and were outraged — outraged — that they might soon have to comply with longstanding regulations that had failed to control turnover, excessive occupancy, and multiple short-term leases that have been increasingly abetted by a care-nothing online marketplace.

Within the last year, Southold and Islip Towns banned property rentals of less than two weeks outright. East Hampton, by marked contrast, allows up to four short-duration leases, though no more than two in any six-month period. For a long time, Southampton Town has had a rental registry, and property inspections there are mandatory. In East Hampton Town, however, a landlord’s attesting that a property meets safety and zoning standards is all the new law requires. Brookhaven, too, has its own registry — with significantly higher fees than in East Hampton.

The East Hampton Town Board should be applauded for not capitulating to those who have openly broken town and possibly federal laws for far too long. As a tool to facilitate better enforcement, the rental registry was long overdue. Its vocal opponents let the money they make get the better of their sense of community. And, given the summertime chaos to which short-termers unarguably contribute, serious thought should be given to following our UpIsland neighbors and getting tougher still.

The Sag Harbor Village Board was wise the other day to back away from a proposed attempt to regulate drones above its streets, just about the time new Federal Aviation Administration rules for the tiny aircraft were being finalized. As of Monday, new drones weighing more than half a pound must be registered with the F.A.A., and the agency has reminded owners that drones cannot be flown within five miles of an airport, unless air traffic controllers are notified in advance. Curious, we looked at a map.

In and around East Hampton Town, the five-mile warning zone includes the entire Village of Sag Harbor, Bridgehampton, and parts of Water Mill and Noyac. Springs is more or less open territory, as are the farther reaches of Northwest Woods and Napeague. The radius from the private Montauk Airport extends around the entire hamlet, from Hither Hills well offshore of Montauk Point.

The whole thing is a puzzle, really, at least out here on the South Fork. Who, for example, is the pilot of a drone supposed to call when the East Hampton Airport control tower is only staffed part of the year and Montauk’s not at all?

As with so much of modern life, technology usually outpaces regulation. Drone-fliers on the South Fork, whether able to phone in a flight plan or not, should be especially aware of the potential for interference with other aircraft. Those giving them as gifts this holiday season should do so with words of warning.

With the governor’s signature, a proposed 20-year extension of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund that could divert up to 20 percent of the 2-percent real estate transfer tax to water quality projects is well on its way to the November ballot. At first look, this might appear to be terrific news, but given what we know about state and local government, there is very real reason for caution.

The enabling law approved by the State Legislature is far too vague and leaves too much to local officials’ discretion. On close inspection it amounts to not much more than a framework, leaving it up to the region’s town boards, with tepid oversight from an understaffed and underfunded Department of Environmental Conservation, to make sure there is no room for future abuse. First and foremost, iron-clad, independently vetted safeguards about how the money is to be used were not written into the process.

In all, the extension of the program is expected to bring in perhaps another $1.5 billion. It is telling that state and local officials chose to carve out one of every five future dollars for water quality, leaving little for other critical goals, such improving residential options for the area’s work force. But then, as recent anti-housing reactions in Wainscott and Amagansett illustrate, providing for this community need can be decidedly unpopular. Under the state law, preservation fund revenue could be used for upgrades to existing sewage treatment plants, so why not for preserving access to houses and apartments for the people who actually keep the communities up and running?

Then there is the question of land use and if improvements in wastewater treatment will lead to overdevelopment. There is strong evidence that the authors of the state bill feared that it would: The law that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed last week specifically mentions this concern but fails to provide any guidelines about how to prevent it.

Clean water is a vital but feel-good goal. Reflecting on past examples of the misuse of government funds is of the highest priority as officials prepare proposals for voter approval in November 2016. Consider, for example, that stealing money from environmental funds, as occurred to paper over holes in the Suffolk County budget, has not always been fatal to the careers of those officials who did so.

Closer to home, local examples of poor judgment (the Montauk Army Corps project) and outright law-breaking (the East Hampton Town Bill McGintee scandal), add to the likelihood that politicians will seek ways to take advantage of anything they regard as “free” money. It would be foolish to believe that this could not happen again. Watchdog groups, as well as the public, must monitor the process closely in advance of the expected referendum.

“Trust us,” as the bill’s authors and its supporters seem to be saying, just won’t cut it.

Over the past few years, it has been disappointing to listen as one lawmaker after another uttered the “I’m not a scientist” refrain to sow doubt about climate change, when no less than 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.

On Saturday, negotiators from 195 countries passed a landmark agreement at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris, under which nearly every country committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. 

Some observers, including Bill McKibben, a professor of environmental studies and founder of the 350.org campaign, criticized the accord as falling far short of what is needed, after years of inaction, to preclude catastrophic warming. But the Paris agreement also represented a historic change that, if it goes according to plan, will hasten a global shift from coal and oil to renewable, emission-free energy sources. 

Alas, too many in Washington and elsewhere remain in deep denial at best, beholden to their fossil-fuel industry benefactors at worst. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, noted that this country’s participation in the accord “is subject to being shredded in 13 months,” when a new president takes office. And just as prevailing winds carry toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants across state lines, the noxious fumes concentrated on Capitol Hill sometimes drift into faraway lands. Such was the case on Dec. 7 as members of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources held a field hearing on Atlantic fisheries in Riverhead. 

Representative Rob Bishop of Utah, the committee’s chairman, set the tone when he told a panel of seven witnesses that he was eager to hear their testimony, “even from those of you whose testimony will be wrong.” It quickly became apparent that the primary target of his scorn was for science itself, as embodied in Paul Rago, the branch chief of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Jumping into the fray, Representative Tom MacArthur, who said that commercial fishing is responsible for 38,000 jobs and $9.3 billion in economic activity in his state, New Jersey, attempted to cast doubt on NOAA’s methodology, repeatedly questioning Dr. Rago as to whether and to what extent climate science influences its fisheries assessments. His implication was clear: Scientists, like government itself, are untrustworthy. 

Mr. Bishop, who had already pronounced that “science is not necessarily objective,” could not conclude the hearing without a last effort to discredit NOAA. In a discussion of the Marine National Monument Program, he asked, “Shouldn’t we continue to work these complex habitat issues through some established, transparent process, rather than having unilateral administrative action?” When Dr. Rago did not provide the hoped-for response, an annoyed Mr. Bishop cut him off. “Let me answer it for you: It’s stupid to do it unilaterally.” 

Representative Jared Huffman, representing the north coast of California, was the committee’s lone defender of a conservative approach to fisheries management. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, criticized by some of the witnesses, is working, he said. “We now have the lowest number of overfished stocks in history, and many stocks are on a positive rebuilding path,” obviously in the long-term economic interest of coastal communities. Science, it seems, is working.

“A strong coastal economy cannot be based on an empty ocean,” Mr. Huffman said, imploring his colleagues to let science, including climate science, guide policy. The non-scientists in Congress and at all levels of government would be wise to heed that advice. 

At a time when terrorist attacks both abroad and at home have rattled anyone who is paying attention, it is perhaps understandable that loud nativist voices have dominated the conversation. Measures of support for Donald Trump’s presidential bid were not negatively affected after he called for blocking Muslims from entering the United States. Several recent polls have shown considerable Republican approval of Mr. Trump’s idea, as un-American as it might be. 

Impractical, perhaps, given the shortage of realistically priced year-round housing on the South Fork, but it would be a statement against bigotry if our elected officials opened our communities’ doors, helping find rentals for refugees, including those from the hell that Syria has become. The best way to combat hate is to work from the neighborhood level out. In a small town, one gets to know people as people — and that’s what counts.

The East Hampton Town Board and other municipalities could have an impact by issuing an invitation to some of the displaced millions now fleeing conflicts around the world. Doing so might encourage others to follow their lead in defiance of those who would have us live in fear.