

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

New vehicle emission standards finalized today by the Obama administration require only modest fuel economy improvements and will still allow total greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks to increase from 2017 through 2025 and over the long term.
The administration considered but rejected more climate-friendly standards -- including a rule that would have reduced total vehicle greenhouse gas emissions despite an increasing number of cars driving more miles -- even though they were technically feasible and cost effective. When various credits and "flexibilities" that reduce actual results are accounted for, the new national standards for 2025 are below standards the European Union, Japan and China have proposed for 2020.
"These standards ignore the urgency of the climate crisis," said Vera Pardee, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Gas mileage will improve modestly over the next 13 years, but not enough to offset total emissions from an increasing number of cars driving more miles. It's especially unfortunate that the new rules again encourage automakers to put more gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs on the road."
The standards are said to reach maximum gas mileage of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But once various credits and "flexibilities" are accounted for, the estimated mileage drops to less than 47 miles per gallon. Cars are commercially available today that meet and exceed this standard.
The standards also provide incentives to build more SUVs and heavier pickup trucks, expanding the SUV loophole. These vehicles consume more fuel and emit more greenhouse gases, yet the standards require lower efficiency-improvement rates for them as compared to cars. As a result, building SUVs and pickups will remain more profitable for manufacturers -- an incentive very likely to increase the number of SUVs and trucks on the roads.
"Cars and trucks are the low-hanging fruit in the fight to get carbon pollution under control, and the technologies to reduce emissions exist or are on the drawing board," Pardee said. "But the administration rejected a standard employing those technologies and instead incentivized SUVs and heavier trucks over cars. Automakers' profits may improve, but the climate crisis will get worse."
These final rules come despite a sobering report from the highly respected International Energy Agency warning that the door is closing on our ability to avert the worst impacts of climate change. The IEA has concluded that "[t]here are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway." The flawed standards for the American vehicle fleet underscore that alarming assessment.
About 19 percent of total U.S. "carbon dioxide equivalent" emissions come from passenger cars and light trucks, equal to about 4 percent of global emissions. Available technologies to improve gas mileage and reduce emissions include more efficient and less-polluting engines and transmissions, strong but lightweight materials, improved aerodynamics, and hybrid and electric vehicles.
Current laws require the government to set fuel efficiency standards at the "maximum feasible" level and are designed to spur technological innovation by requiring that standards be set beyond what is achievable today.
"Setting fuel economy standards for 2025 that are lower than what we can achieve right now is not the kind of progress we urgently need," said Pardee.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"It’s a raw deal for working people: higher costs and less coverage, or no coverage at all," said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle.
The Republican bill that's set for a vote in the US House on Wednesday would leave around 100,000 more Americans uninsured per year over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The analysis published late Tuesday examines each major section of the legislation, which experts have characterized as an assortment of GOP healthcare ideas that—in combination—would do little to achieve its stated goal of "lower healthcare premiums for all."
The CBO estimates that the Republican bill, which stands no chance of passing the Senate even if it clears the House on Wednesday, would lower gross benchmark premiums by 11% on average between 2027 and 2035.
But the legislation does not extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that expire at the end of the year, meaning premiums overall are poised to more than double on average in the coming year. Many Americans are expected to forgo insurance coverage entirely in the face of unaffordable premium increases.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the CBO analysis "makes clear that the bill Republican leadership wants to pass tomorrow would make a bad situation even worse," compounding the widespread damage caused by the Medicaid cuts the party approved over the summer.
"It’s a raw deal for working people: higher costs and less coverage, or no coverage at all," said Boyle. "If Republicans were serious about fixing the healthcare crisis they created, they’d work with Democrats to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits and prevent costs from rising for tens of millions of Americans.”
"While Congress heads home for the holidays, it’s leaving millions of families behind to wonder how they will make ends meet in the new year."
The CBO analysis came hours after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) shot down a bipartisan push for a vote to extend the expiring ACA tax credits, which more than 20 million Americans relied on to afford health coverage.
But on Wednesday, four swing-district House Republicans—Brian Fitzpatrick, Rob Bresnahan, and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania and Mike Lawler of New York—revolted against the GOP leadership and signed onto a Democratic discharge petition aimed at forcing a floor vote on a proposed three-year extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies.
"The only policy that is worse than a clean three-year extension without any reforms, is a policy of complete expiration without any bridge," Fitzpatrick said in a statement. "Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome."
It's unclear when the House will vote on the extension, as lawmakers are leaving town for a two-week holiday recess on Friday. The House is set to return to session on January 6, 2026—after the official expiration of the ACA subsidies.
“While Congress heads home for the holidays, it’s leaving millions of families behind to wonder how they will make ends meet in the new year,” Ailen Arreaza, executive director of the advocacy group ParentsTogether, said in a statement Wednesday. “By refusing to fix this healthcare crisis, Republicans are choosing political games over families’ health and financial security."
"These subsidies have been a lifeline for millions, and letting them expire will force millions to make impossible choices or even go without coverage altogether," said Arreaza. "Make no mistake: Families around the country will pay the price for Congress’ inaction."
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday filed a complaint against the Nobel Foundation to stop its planned payouts to Venezuelan opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, who has backed US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
According to a press release that WikiLeaks posted to X, Assange's lawsuit seeks to block Machado from obtaining over USD $1 million she's due to receive from the Nobel Foundation as winner of this year's Peace Prize.
The complaint notes that Alfred Nobel's will states that the Peace Prize named after him should only be awarded to those who have "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” by doing “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Machado praised Trump’s policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing Venezuelan oil tankers, acts of aggression that appear to go against Nobel's stated declaration that the Peace Prize winner must promote "fraternity between nations."
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere,” Machado told CBS News.
Trump’s campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
In his complaint, Assange claims that Machado's gushing praise of Trump in the wake of his illegal boat-bombing campaign is enough to justify the Nobel Foundation freezing its disbursements to the Venezuelan politician.
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war," Assange states, adding that "Machado has continued to incite the Trump Administration to pursue its escalatory path" against her own country.
The complaint also argues that there's a risk that funds awarded to Machado will be "diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."
Were this to happen, the complaint alleges, it would violate Sweden's obligations under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute, which states that anyone who "aids, abets, or otherwise assists" in the commission of a war crime shall be subject to prosecution under the International Criminal Court.
Trump in recent days has ramped up his aggressive actions against Venezuela, and on Tuesday night he announced a "total and complete blockade" of all "sanctioned oil tankers" seeking to enter and leave the country.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”
The poll shows the progressive congresswoman winning back voters who swung toward Trump in a hypothetical 2028 matchup with MAGA's potential heir apparent.
As MAGA's popularity wanes, a new poll shows that progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is now slightly favored to win a hypothetical presidential election against Vice President JD Vance, a leading contender to be the heir apparent to President Donald Trump.
The survey of over 1,500 registered voters, published Tuesday by The Argument/Verasight, shows the Bronx congresswoman slightly edging out the vice president, 51% to 49%, within the margin of error.
While the 2028 presidential election is still nearly three years away, the poll suggests that Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist who some have dubbed too polarizing to represent the Democratic Party, may have more nationwide appeal than establishment politicians have claimed.
Neither Vance nor Ocasio-Cortez has formally declared their intent to run for the presidency. But as Trump's loyal vice president, Vance is considered by many to be his natural successor. However, the president has continued to vacillate on whether he’ll run for an unconstitutional third-term bid himself, and polls have consistently shown Vance to be even less popular than Trump.
Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, is one of the relatively few Democrats available to fill a wide-open progressive lane. While her credibility among some on the left was dinged substantially by her defenses of the unpopular former President Joe Biden last year, the core planks of her affordability-focused platform—especially Medicare for All—are more popular than ever in the age of Trumpian austerity. This is especially true among Democratic voters, who polls have shown increasingly view the party establishment as out of step with their priorities.
Following Trump's victory in 2024, which was propelled predominantly by fears about inflation under Biden, one of the most striking numbers was the 11% shift toward Trump in the Bronx from 2020.
But while Trump gained substantially, Ocasio-Cortez also cruised to her fourth term in Congress with about as much support as ever, leading many to marvel at the rise of the idiosyncratic “AOC-Trump” voter, who was evidently disillusioned with the economy under the Democratic incumbent but felt compelled by Ocasio-Cortez’s working-class background and “anti-establishment” status.
Tuesday’s poll shows that these sorts of voters are very capable of being won back by the right Democratic candidate: 8% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 said they’d vote for Ocasio-Cortez in a hypothetical showdown with Vance. And while Trump dominated in 2024 among those who did not vote in the previous election, the poll shows Ocasio-Cortez reversing the trend, with support from 52% of those who stayed home in 2024.
Adding to this, the congresswoman polled well with the voter demographics that Vice President Kamala Harris—another likely 2028 hopeful—struggled to mobilize.
Where Trump dominated with non-college-educated voters, 56% to 42%, Ocasio-Cortez is virtually tied with Vance. Among Hispanic voters, who went against the Democratic VP in historic numbers to give Trump nearly half of their support, Ocasio-Cortez is shown to lead by an overwhelming 64% to 36% margin.
And among voters aged 18-29, who favored Harris by just four points in 2024, Ocasio-Cortez comfortably leads Vance by 16.
Her support among young voters, one of the groups most disillusioned with the Democratic establishment, is especially striking. While Ocasio-Cortez lags somewhat behind Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom in early polls for the 2028 Democratic nomination across all age groups, a Yale youth poll released last week showed that she is by far the preferred candidate among voters ages 18-35.
Meanwhile, the issue that propelled Trump back to the White House—the economy—has become an albatross for the GOP, with a record-low 31% of all voters giving him positive marks, according to an Associated Press/NORC poll last week.
Axios reported in September that Ocasio-Cortez was still weighing her options for what path to pursue in 2028, seeking to heighten her national profile in advance of either a presidential run or a primary challenge to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who Democratic voters have increasingly scorned for what they perceive as routine capitulations to Trump.
Since Trump’s return to office, she has only continued to lean into her status as a progressive leader, joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on a nationwide campaign to “Fight Oligarchy,” which has drawn massive crowds in both red and blue states. Meanwhile, the unexpected rise of fellow democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York’s next mayor has provided proof of concept that a working-class-focused, anti-corporate agenda can win elections.
"She has a very real shot in 2028," said CNN pollster Harry Enten back in September. "There's been a tectonic shift among Democratic voters since Bernie Sanders first ran. AOC's in a far better polling position than Sanders was before his first run, and the Democratic Party is also sick of its leadership."