

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."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."