Politics over policy: The diesel export ban and the NRDC’s hypocrisy

Last week the Trump administration proposed a ban on exports of diesel fuel. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) swiftly responded by praising the Republican president as a climate hero. Just kidding on that last part!

The president’s diesel concern is real: the wars in Ukraine and the Persian Gulf have caused serious damage to the world’s energy infrastructure, spiking the price of diesel in America and everywhere else. The president’s proposed solution isn’t as genuine: the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and others have correctly warned an export ban will cause domestic refineries to cut back on diesel production, which eventually causes prices to increase.

But the worst we can say of Trump and his thoughtful critics is that both are trying to be part of a solution. The supposedly nonpolitical NRDC has become part of the politics, which translates to “part of the problem.”

If their own advocacy is to be taken seriously, then the NRDC really should be sending out news releases praising Trump. We know this because just 16 months ago they denounced him for proposing to increase exports of liquified natural gas (LNG).

In addition to putting money in the pockets of American energy workers, last year’s plan was aimed at helping European allies cut off from Russian gas due to the Ukraine conflict. A ban on American diesel exports, it should be noted, will likely have the opposite effect and harm energy-starved Europe.

Back in May 2025, the NRDC Action Fund (the NRDC’s policy advocacy arm) issued a call to action headlined “Stop Trump’s Dangerous LNG Export Expansion.” This is the full text, with original emphasis:

President Trump is ramping up climate-destroying exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) right now. We need your help to fight back today.

Tell Congress to block Trump’s efforts to fast-track the production and export of dangerous LNG and protect our climate, economy, communities, and health.

Exporting more LNG overseas increases energy prices for American consumers and businesses. And LNG wreaks havoc on our environment from start to finish. It guzzles energy during processing, spewing tons of carbon pollution before it’s even burned. It increases methane leaks – a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Congress can stop this assault on our environment, but we need your voice to counter the influence of the fossil fuel industry—sign now. Demand Congress block Trump’s dangerous LNG expansion agenda and protect our health and environment.

“Carbon pollution” is NRDC-speak for “carbon dioxide” (CO₂), the gas necessary for making vegetation grow and thus, like oxygen, an essential support for all life on Earth. NGOs such as NRDC assume the human-caused CO₂ added to the atmosphere from burning hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or diesel has been causing catastrophic changes to the weather.

This is the basis for their claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. But whether the NRDC and its allies are correct or have grossly exaggerated the CO₂ concern is beside the point, because not all sources of human generated CO₂ are equal.

The U.S. Department of Energy, in a report released at the tail end of the Biden administration, calculated the CO₂ intensity of all the major uses of hydrocarbon fuels. By a large margin, natural gas was judged to have the least CO₂ intensity. Natural gas generates 116.7 pounds of carbon dioxide for each British Thermal Unit (BTU) of energy output, while diesel and home heating fuel checked in at 163.5 pounds.

By NRDC standards, that makes diesel 40 percent more “carbon polluting” than natural gas. So, if NRDC Action denounced Trump last year for promoting natural gas exports, then they should be 40 percent more excited to praise him for cutting off diesel exports, right?

Wrong. As of Friday afternoon, three days after the policy was first floated by the president, there was no evidence of any reaction from the NRDC. Nothing on the website and nothing popped up in google searches. Sending Grok to scour the social media and the internet returned this: “NRDC has not issued a public statement.”

Then Grok helpfully pointed out the many awful things NRDC has said about diesel emissions. In June 2025, for example, just six weeks after the LNG call to action, the NRDC referred to the Port of Los Angeles as a “diesel death zone” because of the trucks used to move goods to and from the port (and, not coincidentally, help keep the American economy functioning).

The simplest way to explain the NRDC’s hypocrisy through silence on the diesel export ban is to assume they’re motivated by politics rather than policy. The obvious rebuttal is that Trump is also playing politics by trying to slash diesel prices right before a mid-term election that is expected to go poorly for his party.

Fair enough, but irrelevant. Donald J. Trump is obviously a popularly elected politician. His breed first appeared roughly five centuries before Jesus when the Greeks developed democracy. In the 2500 years since, every successful politician has, in some measure, manipulated policy to shore up political support.

The NRDC claims to be something different: a policy-focused NGO committed to protecting nature. They believe this can be accomplished in part by opposing the carbon dioxide emissions that come from burning hydrocarbon fuels. Whether this is a valid position or not is immaterial. Americans provide a tax exemption for policy education NGOs because we want to incentivize honest feedback on important matters and receive that feedback without political bias.

Like the NRDC, the Institute for Energy Research is also a policy education NGO. There the similarities end. The IER’s recommendations on energy and environmental matters are contrary to the NRDC on nearly every relevant point. And so is their approach to politics—or lack thereof.

The response last week from the IER, warning of the problems with the diesel export ban, is how a policy NGO is supposed to behave. The IER has also promoted the benefits of Trump administration policies when it judges them to be good for Americans and amplified the statements of Democrats who voice support for domestic energy abundance.

In a nation of robust debate on these important issues, it is inevitable that policy NGOs such as IER and NRDC will find friendlier audiences on opposite sides of the political divide. That makes it even more important for them to scrupulously avoid the appearance of bias, seek out moments of agreement with “the other side,” and criticize “their side” when it steps out of line. Fairly calling “balls and strikes,” based on objective criteria, and regardless of partisan sympathies, is what a nonprofit policy NGO is supposed to do.

That’s their “one job,” as the kids like to say. Last week the NRDC didn’t show up for work.