This logical argument, Taken to its conclusion, means we should never try to protect more land because it will increase raw material costs or screw up the environment of another country. We should never protect anything because some other country doesn't. I don't buy your race to the bottom/lowest standards argument. Somethings are worth doing and you have to start somewhere. We have to start in the US where we control the laws, versus foreign countries where we don't.

Seems fair to me to blame the political party that enacts policies I disagree with. Regardless of which party is behind it, I am never going to be happy when sound environmental protections are rolled back to protect some narrow special economic interest rather than the public good as a whole.