

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.
Stephen Kent, skent@kentcom.com, 914-589-5988
On the eve of executive budget hearings in the New York City Council, NGOs including Energy Vision, the New York League of Conservation Voters, WE ACT for Environmental Justice and prominent health experts called on the City to stop buying heavy-duty diesel vehicles for its municipal fleets and to adopt superior alternatives to diesel that are available today. Specifically, they are asking the City and MTA to take the following actions:
Diesel exhaust is a major emitter of powerful greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Its nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions are a significant threat to public health. They cause cardiovascular damage and are a major trigger for asthma attacks. New York's childhood asthma rates have tripled in the last three decades and now afflict an astonishing 13.3% of children living in New York City.
London has already banned procurement of new diesel vehicles and other major cities worldwide are restricting or eliminating them. In the US, many heavy-duty fleets have converted to RNG. Nationwide, 60% of the refuse trucks on order today are natural gas models which can run on RNG as well as CNG.
While other major cities have adopted RNG, New York City has not. Its municipal fleets currently have few natural gas trucks and none run on RNG. NYC agencies continue to rely on diesel vehicles, and their budgets call for buying hundreds more in the years ahead.
"That deserves to end now," said Joanna Underwood, founder and board member of Energy Vision, "and the budget process could help make it happen. The City Council could play a leadership role by framing its budget guidelines so they encourage city agencies to seize the opportunities they have to deploy better alternatives for this world-class city."
In City Council committee budget hearings in March, Energy Vision testified on the best strategies for replacing the City's diesel vehicles. Today, Energy Vision sent the City Council and released publicly a new report on this topic, Ending the Diesel Era: Cleaner Fleets for a Healthier New York City. It assembles the latest evidence showing why it is vital for the City to eliminate diesel heavy-duty vehicles and start adopting alternatives. Among the points it makes:
The City can't meet its climate and air quality goals with diesel -- The City deserves credit for setting ambitious clean air and greenhouse gas reduction goals. It has pledged to achieve the best air quality of any major U.S. city by 2050 and to cut GHGs 80% from its municipal fleet vehicles by 2035. But to meet or exceed these goals will require a major, rapid shift away from diesel fuel.
Heavy-duty vehicles are the key -- Across New York City's fleets, heavy-duty diesel trucks consume 60% of all fleet fuel and generate most of the harmful emissions, including greenhouse gases and health-damaging particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution. They are therefore the most important and urgent targets for switching to non-diesel alternatives.
RNG is the best alternative -- Natural gas vehicles equipped with the new ultra-low emission Near Zero natural gas engines, and powered by RNG offer by far the fastest, healthiest and most cost-effective way for the City to attain its climate and air quality goals. RNG is the lowest carbon fuel available. It is made by capturing and refining the methane biogases from decomposing organic wastes, which would otherwise escape into the air as powerful climate-changing gases. Compared to diesel, RNG reduces GHG emissions by 70% to300%. It is often net carbon-negative over its lifecycle. Near Zero engines cut particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions 90% below EPA allowable limits and are 50 to 80% quieter than diesel engines. There is already sufficient natural gas refueling infrastructure in NYC to serve hundreds of natural gas trucks, which could easily deliver RNG. There are seven operational CNG refueling stations within the five boroughs, including DSNY facilities in Woodside, Queens and Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Many private sector companies are eager to expand New York's non-diesel refueling infrastructure, and several new RNG-capable refueling stations are now coming on line.
Renewable diesel is a distant second -- This year the City announced a pilot program to use renewable diesel (RD) fuel in its existing heavy-duty vehicles. But renewable diesel (RD), not to be confused with renewable natural gas (RNG), is a distant second choice for New York. RD is made mainly from oils and residues of energy biomass crops, but it does not offer the climate and health emissions reduction benefits of RNG. RD would enable NYC fleets to keep relying on diesel engines, but that would effectively prevent adoption of better alternatives. RD is also expensive and supply reliability is uncertain. Since it is a liquid fuel, RD would have to be trucked and shipped across the country to New York, for which the City would pay a premium of $26 million a year over ordinary diesel. RNG is less expensive than ordinary diesel.
RNG could help solve the City's waste problem -- RNG can be easily transported to New York via existing natural gas pipelines and delivered via existing natural gas refueling stations. Longer term, the City could use its own organic waste streams to produce the RNG it needs locally. Some RNG production capacity already exists in New York and more is under development in the region. Processing the 1.2 million tons of food waste New York City generates each year would produce enough RNG fuel to power all the City's heavy-duty vehicles, while leveraging its organic waste stream's untapped potential as a valuable energy resource.
"New York is leaving one of its best resources for fighting climate change and improving public health on the table," said Energy Vision president Matt Tomich, co-author of the report. "Doubling down on diesel when superior alternatives exist makes no sense. Nor does letting NYC's organic waste stream go to 'waste' instead of using it to produce RNG. The City spends $400 million a year to ship its waste out of state; a third of which is organics. Instead of discarding them, New Yorkers would get powerful benefits from harnessing its organic wastes to produce RNG for its own fleets."
"While diesel engines long had the benefits of power and fuel use efficiency, I am now convinced that they are an outmoded choice," said Brendan Sexton, former Department of Sanitation (DSNY) Commissioner, former Chair of the City's Procurement Policy Board and a board member of Energy Vision. "New natural gas heavy-duty engines have the power to do what NYC trucks need to do with less noise and much less pollution or carbon impact. It is time for New York's fleets, especially its huge refuse fleet, to start aggressively phasing out diesel as many other cities and private haulers across the country are doing."
"DSNY takes pride - and rightly so - in efficiently operating the largest refuse fleet in the US," said Norman Steisel, CEO of EnEssCo Strategies, former DSNY Commissioner and former NYC Deputy Mayor, who is also on Energy Vision's board. "So why is it dragging its feet in replacing its outmoded diesel trucks with the more sophisticated technology available today? The new 'Near Zero' natural gas engines are here now, and the trucks are affordable. RNG fuel is here now, and there are already natural gas refueling stations in place that can deliver this new fuel reliably and affordably. All DSNY has to do is do it. The health and environmental benefits cry out for responsible action."
"For too long diesel fumes from NYC's buses and trucks have been poisoning our children and families," said Cecil D. Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director and Director of Policy Initiatives at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. "Energy Vision's report shows that we no longer need to rely on diesel engine technology and fuel. Better choices are available. Its time for the City Council and Mayor to provide leadership in moving our fleets to the fuels of the future."
"Getting rid of diesel is the right thing to do," said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, Dean for Global Health at Mt. Sinai. "It will improve the quality of life. It will be highly cost-effective. And it can solidify New York City's position as an environmental leader among American cities."
In his new book Children and Environmental Toxins, Dr. Landrigan pointed out, "Replacing diesel vehicles with safer, non-polluting alternatives will reduce rates of asthma among our children. It will reduce myocardial infarctions, cardiac arrhythmias, and strokes among New York City's adults. It will reduce risk of lung cancer. And because it will prevent many cases of these debilitating diseases, the elimination of diesel trucks and buses from the vehicle fleets in New York will reduce health care costs and save money."
"The disproportionate health impacts from diesel trucks is one of the most important environmental justice issues in New York City," said Kevin R. Cromar, Ph.D., Director of the Air Quality Program at New York University's Marron Institute of Urban Management. "While all neighborhoods will benefit from a transition to lower emission vehicles, neighborhoods with the highest air pollution-related health impacts deserve to be prioritized as fleet conversion occurs.
"Energy Vision's new report is just the kind of resource that New York policymakers need as they seek to address New York's significant air pollution and climate change issues," said Marcia Bystryn, President of the New York League of Conservation Voters.
"Our children are our future, and in one of this country's greatest cities, we must set an example giving them a healthy environment to grow up in," said Blythe Danner, actor and environmental advocate. "Energy Vision has long been a leader in finding solutions, and this new report on ending the diesel era has done it again."
"When we do get ICE out of Maine, it's important for people to understand that that came from below, that came from power from organizers, from a mobilized population," said Senate candidate Graham Platner.
At a rally outside Sen. Susan Collins' office on Thursday morning, soon after the Republican lawmaker claimed she had gotten assurances from the Trump administration that it would end its immigration enforcement surge in Maine, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said he was not prepared to accept a "pinky promise" from the White House after the arrests of hundreds of Mainers in recent days.
"I don’t believe it,” Platner told a crowd of protesters. “I don’t take the word of an administration that continues to break the law. I don’t take the word of an administration that continues to stomp our constitutional rights. We need to see material change.”
Collins said in a statement Thursday morning that she had spoken with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and received information that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "has ended its enhanced activities in the state of Maine"—adding the caveat that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "does not confirm law enforcement operations."
"There are currently no ongoing or planned large-scale ICE operations here," said the senator. "ICE and Customs and Border Patrol will continue their normal operations that have been ongoing here for many years."
About 200 people have been detained in what ICE has called "Operation Catch of the Day" since it was launched earlier this month, and immigrant rights and mutual aid groups in Portland, Lewiston, and other cities have ramped up efforts to support the state's growing population of immigrants and asylum-seekers, including its Somali community, which includes many people who have become citizens since arriving in the US.
The administration said it had a list of more than 1,400 people in Maine it aimed to arrest—people it claimed were among the so-called "worst of the worst" violent criminals the White House wants to deport.
People abducted from their cars and homes in the state, however, include a corrections officer who was eligible to work in the US, a civil engineer on a work visa, a mother who was followed home by ICE agents and had a pending asylum application, and a father who was driving his wife and 1-month-old baby home from an appointment and whose car window was shattered by an agent, sending glass flying into the infant's car seat. None of those people had criminal records, according to background checks and attorneys.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) said that while the "visible federal presence" in Maine may be reduced following Collins' announcement, "it is important that people understand what we saw during this operation: Individuals who are legally allowed to be in the United States, whether by lawful presence or an authorized period of stay, following the rules, and being detained anyway.”
“That is not limited to this one operation," said Pingree. "That has been the pattern of this administration’s immigration enforcement over the past year, and there is no indication that policy has changed.”
Platner told local ABC News affiliate WMTW that Collins affirmed in her statement that "she still supports ICE operations, just not this expanded one. An agency that over the past week has abducted people that work for the sheriff's department, has abducted fathers bringing their newborn child home from the hospital, an agency that has murdered American citizens in the streets of Minneapolis."
"That is not an agency that has any welcome in Maine to conduct any operations," said Platner, who has spoken out in support of abolishing ICE, which was established in 2003.
Sen. Susan Collins said ICE has ended its enhanced operation in Maine. But Graham Platner, who is running for Collins' Senate seat, told @catemccusker that he will believe it when he sees it. https://t.co/7GL6qM3Bf6 pic.twitter.com/iE6O44Ok5t
— WMTW TV (@WMTWTV) January 29, 2026
Platner also emphasized in comments to the Maine Newsroom that Collins, who as the Senate Appropriations Committee chair has been working to pass spending bills to avert a government shutdown and has been fighting against a push to strip DHS funding out of the package, should not get credit for pushing ICE out of Maine, if the agency is actually retreating.
"When we do get ICE out of Maine, it's important for people to understand that that came from below, that came from power from organizers, from a mobilized population," said Platner. "It is that power that is going to push ICE out of Maine, and those in power, who have done nothing, are not the ones who get to take credit. The people of Maine get to take credit."
The government spending bills passed last week in the House with seven Democrats—including Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—supporting the DHS funding. The Senate needs to pass the package by the end of Friday to avoid a shutdown.
Portland City Council member April Fournier said the timing of Collins' announcement seemed "very convenient" for the senator, who is running for a sixth term.
"I take this with a grain of salt," said Fournier. "There's a very important budget vote today that Susan Collins will be a part of and there's a lot of pressure on her given all of these immigration operations, what's happened in Maine, what's happened in Minneapolis, and all over. She has a lot of pressure to decrease funding for ICE, and she has really put her line in the sand that she's not willing to do that."
Fournier added that Collins is "vulnerable" as the midterms approach, "so if she's able to somehow say, 'We got ICE out of Maine,' and then try and paint herself as the hero, I think that her political analysis of the situation is that will win her back some favor."
The council member noted that just over seven years ago, the senator assured voters that US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as she announced her vote to confirm him.
"I trust Susan Collins and her actions about as much as I trust thin ice in spring here in Maine," said Fournier.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," said one critic.
White House border czar Tom Homan on Thursday sparked alarm when he used terminology associated with overseas war to describe federal immigration operations taking place in Minnesota.
During a press briefing, Homan was asked about the number of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents operating in Minnesota.
"3,000," Homan replied. "There's been some rotations. Another thing I witnessed when I came here, I'll share this with you, I've met a lot of people, they've been in theater, some of them have been in theater for eight months. So there's going to be rotations of personnel."
Q: Can you be specific about how many ICE and Border Patrol agents are currently operating in the state?
HOMAN: 3,000. There's been some rotations. They've been in theater a long time. Day after day, can't eat in restaurants, people spin on you, blowing whistles at you. But my… pic.twitter.com/1Vz8mKYCAv
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2026
Typically terms such as "rotations" and "theater" are not used to describe domestic law enforcement operations, but overseas military deployments.
Many critics were quick to notice Homan's use of war jargon to describe actions being taken in a US city and said it was reflective of how the Trump administration sees itself as an occupying force in its own country.
"'In theater' like they're landing marines at Guadalcanal or something," wrote Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), in a post on X. "This stuff is happening in suburban American communities, that's where they're sending violent, masked invaders."
Northwestern University historian Kathleen Belew also expressed shock at Homan's rhetoric.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," she wrote on Bluesky. "'In theater' means in a war."
Andrew Lawrence, deputy director of rapid response as Media Matters, said Homan's war talk was "a crazy way to describe Minneapolis," while documentary filmmaker John Darwin Kurc described it as a "frightening characterization."
Shelby Edwards, a retired US Army major, also recognized the violent implications of Homan's words.
"Incredibly damaging how military language has infiltrated these agencies," she observed. "'In theater' is used for deployments into foreign nations, when we deploy soldiers we say things like this. This is America. This is an American agency assigned to an American city."
"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
Amid the latest budget standoff in Congress, Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they may be willing to make a deal to fund the US Department of Homeland Security in exchange for a slate of "reforms" designed to rein in what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "state-sanctioned thuggery."
But just because something is written in law doesn't mean ICE agents will follow it.
That's what Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—demonstrated when, as part of an order issued Wednesday, he published a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE has violated in just the month of January.
Schiltz issued the list as part of an order canceling a hearing for acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, whom he’d previously ordered to appear in court on Friday or face contempt. The judge demanded Lyon's personal appearance after ICE ignored the judge’s order to give a bail hearing to a detainee, Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, one of “dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.” Schiltz canceled Lyons’ hearing when Robles was released from custody.
"That does not end the Court’s concerns, however," Schiltz wrote on Wednesday. "Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases."
"This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law," he went on. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
"ICE," he said, "is not law unto itself."
This scathing document of ICE's willful disregard for the law was top of mind for many critics of the compromise Democrats appear poised to make in exchange for passing a budget package that includes $64.4 billion in DHS funding, including $10 billion for ICE and $18 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
On Thursday, seven Republicans joined Democrats in a 45-55 vote to block the spending package, which needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they want to separate DHS funding from the rest of the bill in order to negotiate a series of "reforms." If a deal is not reached by January 30, funding for DHS and several other agencies will lapse, causing another partial government shutdown.
On Wednesday, Schumer told the press that Democrats are "united" behind three key reforms to DHS. Per TIME Magazine:
“We want to end roving patrols,” Schumer said, laying out Democrats’ first demand. “We need to tighten the rules governing the use of warrants and require ICE coordination with state and local law enforcement.”
Second, he said, Democrats want to “enforce accountability,” including a uniform federal code of conduct and independent investigations into alleged abuses. Federal agents, he argued, should be held to the same use-of-force standards as local police and face consequences when they violate them.
Third, Schumer said, Democrats are demanding “masks off, body cameras on,” a reference to proposals that would bar agents from wearing face coverings, require they wear body cameras and mandate that agents carry visible identification. “No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives,” he said.
Journalist and political analyst Adam Johnson described these proposals as "superficial," with many already being codified into law or even the US Constitution.
"As many scholars have noted, Trump arresting people without warrants is already unconstitutional and illegal, but his DHS is doing it anyway," he wrote. "Passing laws to enforce existing law may dissuade the Trump regime in some contexts, but it’s unclear why Trump wouldn’t just ignore the new law since they duly ignored the previous one."
He also said, "It’s unclear how much power Congress or states would have to 'enforce accountability' while Trump’s cartoonishly corrupt DOJ continues to investigate and threaten state lawmakers and leaders with prison time."
Johnson noted that the list of demands made by progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was more comprehensive, including bans on arrest quotas and forcing ICE to end its reign of terror in Minneapolis, but said "it’s unclear how Congress would define, much less enforce, these parameters. And most conspicuous of all, their demands make zero mention of reducing DHS’s obscene budget."
DHS funds were already increased by $170 billion over the next five years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress last year, and ICE funding tripled, from $10 billion per year to $30 billion, making it the equivalent of the 13th most expensive military in the world.
Aaron Regunberg, a writer at the New Republic, questioned what good it was to subject ICE to new laws when, as Schiltz's order showed, "ICE breaks the law, courts order them to stop, and then they keep breaking the law."
"You have to be dumb as bricks to think the answer is to pass a law saying it's against the law to break the law," he continued. "The answer is to stop giving these fascist goons billions of our tax dollars."