Latest News
Shaken, stirred and sketchy
Nov 19, 2025
Alec Linden
WAMC’s Joe Donahue joined Devin McEwan and Sandra Boynton at the White Hart Inn in Salisbury on Nov. 13 to discuss the mother-son duo’s new book of holiday tipples, aptly titled “Extremely Happy Holidays.” Pleasantly buzzed guests swilled bubbles, wine and festive cocktails as McEwan explained how the book came to be: “I don’t know if it’s peer pressure if your mom is doing the pressuring,” he said of Boynton, his universally beloved illustrator and humorist mother. Boynton contributed her pictographic and design skills to McEwan’s dry humor and less-dry recipes for a snappy catalog of cocktails. The book is available at Oblong Books.
Dear EarthTalk: Isn’t it foolish to rebuild millions of homes in areas ravaged by floods or wildfires given the likelihood that this extreme weather will keep occurring? — Mike Aspen, Baltimore, MD
In recent years, the continued global prevalence of climate change has increased the number of weather-related catastrophes. In fact, eight of California’s 10 largest wildfires have occurred in the past five years, resulting not only in the loss of lives but also significant property damage. Due to this repeated phenomenon, many climate experts suggest that towns at a high risk of weather-related catastrophes should be abandoned, not rebuilt. Financial, logistical and safety factors indicate that rebuilding in low-hazard areas can be significantly more beneficial than rebuilding in high-hazard areas.
Building new homes in areas at high risk of flood or wildfire contributes up to $3 billion to disaster-related costs annually. At the current rate, experts predict that some 220,000 homes could be built in locations exposed to high wildfire hazards by 2030, making for unprecedented financial loss from property damage. In the case of Greenville, California, for instance, rebuilding is predicted to cost around $1 billion, yet most residents do not plan to return, largely because experts think the area could be destroyed again in the next 30 years. “Governments can save billions of dollars each year and keep people safe from disasters by building just a small percentage of new homes away from the highest-risk areas for wildfires and floods,” says Ryan Ness, Director of Adaptation at the Canadian Climate Institute.
To make matters worse, the use of fire-resistant material to rebuild is costly and thus not required by law, leading to increased risk. Though urban planners stress the need for fire-resistant design, officials often push for rapid reconstruction, thus waiving environmental permits and zoning regulations.
Beyond the lack of fire-resistant material, the location of rebuilt homes increases the dangers that residents face as the frequency of weather-related disasters such as droughts, floods and wildfires has increased fivefold since 1970 and have led to the deaths of 2 million people globally. Furthermore, wildfires do not just destroy homes—they degrade air quality, water supply and forests, causing permanent detrimental effects.
The Canadian Climate Institute recommends building housing and infrastructure in low-hazard areas, moving away from high-risk zones. Another recommendation is to create, maintain, and make publicly available maps that show where hazardous areas are to warn potential residents. Moreover, the Institute also suggested reforming disaster assistance programs as a way to deter risky urban development.
EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk.
Keep ReadingShow less
The president was correct last week when he stated that the cost of a Thanksgiving meal at Walmart will be lower this year. He neglected to add that this year’s dinner contains six fewer products than its 2024 basket and only 22 items, compared to 29. I guess that is no surprise.
By this time, shrinkage is everywhere among products. This is a common tactic used by manufacturers to give the appearance of a larger product, when in fact, you’re getting less.In the food category, it is running rampant, so why not at Thanksgiving? Cans are smaller. There are fewer items in smaller packages, and, of course, the ‘fool you’ trick of keeping the package size the same but filling it with air.
Walmart, among other grocery stores, has announced a 25% drop in its 2025 Thanksgiving basket, serving 10 people. This means you, the savvy shopper, can save money this year and still provide a hearty meal for your family.
Wells Fargo’s Agri-Food Institute provides an annual run-down of the year’s prices for the typical Thanksgiving meal. This year, they predict that consumers will pay 2-3% less for their Thanksgiving meal, despite food-at-home prices increasing 2.7% so far in 2025. The latest Consumer Price Index report indicated that beef, bananas, and coffee were responsible for much of that increase, and (Praise Be) none of them are Thanksgiving staples.
As always, those numbers will depend on a shopper’s strategies and food choices. For example, if you exclude beef and eggs from the menu, chances are the dinner will be cheaper. If you stick to store brands, a typical menu will come in at $80 versus $95 for a meal of national-name brand items.
Some national brands, however, use certain loss-leader items to keep in the running for your holiday dollars. Cranberries and frozen vegetables, for example, may be cheaper than store brands, so do your homework. As for dessert, stick with pumpkin pie, which is down about 3% in price from last year,
The dinner’s pièce de résistance, the turkey, will also drop in price this year. Retail turkey prices are down 3.7%. Additionally, keep an eye out for sales. As of last weekend, I scored a $.67/pound frozen turkey and a $.87/pound ham at my local supermarket chain. Given that I am a bit of a skinflint, I usually buy several turkeys during the holiday season.
It is not that I especially crave the taste of a 20-pound big bird, but my dog loves them. At the current price of a 12-ounce can of dog food (between $2-$3), or a premium brand ($3-$7), the price of a turkey is a steal. I throw it in the oven, often while I am writing this column. Once done, I chop it up into bite-sized chunks and freeze it in baggies, except for the drumsticks, which my wife loves. But I digress.
Donald Trump has claimed that the only grocery item that has increased in price is beef. We all know that is not true. Why would the nation’s president try to pull the wool over our eyes when dozens of food items continue to increase in price? One word—affordability.
He knows that consumers are faced with the rising cost of everything. It is an increasing hardship that has become even more difficult lately. Millions ofRepublicans as well as Democrats depend on SNAP to eat. The same can be said for those enrolled in Obamacare who face massive premium hikes.
Tariffs, immigration, and peace deals may be nice, but they only go so far. The opposition is aware of this. Increasingly, Democrats have used this issue effectively, as evidenced by last week’s elections. I suspect that this message of affordability is beginning to ring loud and clear in the Oval Office.I’ll leave it at that because my oven (and my dog) are telling me my first roast turkey of the season is done.
Bill Schmick is a founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires.Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners, Inc. (OPI).
Keep ReadingShow less
loading
