Good work Hank. GOP gets points for CAFE and adding to the wilderness system (that had more D than R support, but why quibble?) but not so much for the Hawaiian monument as again, there was little risk or opposition; i.e., it wasn't going to cost a Republican anything to support it.

But yeah, on average that's my point. Since Reagan and his Interior Secretary James Watt, the Rs generally, but not always, support development actions that contribute to the degradation and destruction of the natural environment, typically opposing clean air, clean water, natural area preservation, and energy conservation. And thanks for reaching in the grab bag for the exceptions.

Daily I deal with or observe plans that will further degrade the natural environment. I hesitate to say over 90%, so let's just say that the overwhelming majority are sponsored by people who identify with R or political conservatism. It's totally predictable, even without checking for the oversize gold pinky finger ring or tassel loafers most of them wear.

Liberals only think ". . . any GOP environmental plan includes an oil well in every back yard and lead paint chips and mercury smoothies as a part of child nutrition programs." because they usually do. I would think otherwise if only a few prominent Rs would actively oppose major actions that will knowingly degrade the environment.

I don't want to tear down every dam in the country since I choose to design fish passage systems and stream flow management requirements for some of them. And I don't want to convert all energy use to wind or solar - yet at least - because they are not technologically advanced enough in terms of energy storage to provide a 24/7/365 supply, and are therefore insufficient.

Sg

Sg