I always find it puzzling why, when it comes to the environment, there are two camps of people; the 'environmentalists' and the 'non(?) environmentalists'. I don't understand why 'Republicans have to be in general anti and Democrats have to be pro environment'.
I don't think the environment is an issue where lobbying and engaging in partisan causes makes sense (except in the sense of scoring political wins; always prosaic for me). I don't think that the issue of whether and how important the environment is is an issue at all. I don't believe it is a matter of opinion. It's simply a fact, isn't it? What does 'being a Republican' have to do anything with not being as concerned about the environment as a Democrat. The situation has gone way too far for that. Saving the environment is not 'an option'. I do hope that all of us understand and act on this, without attaching stupid political labels to each and every inhabitant of our planet. It is well known that we are damaging the environment (notwithstanding the 'Day after tomorrow' type outcries) and that fact will unfortunately not disappear if I declare myself a 'pro' or 'anti' environmentalist. I hope that all of us do something about it, so that members of my fifth generation (maybe earlier ones?) will not have to live coated with a layer of fast deteriorating material that protects them from the sun's UV radiation.

In fact, I think that this whole issue bears upon the general matter of attaching labels to people. Why do 'intellectuals' generally have to be left-liberal? Why were people who opposed nuclear testing immediately labeled as left-liberals? Why can't a 'right hawk' oppose Government policy? Simply because then he won't be obeying definitions? Since when did we start obeying the dictionary, instead of it being the other way round?
Politics surely is an ugly thing; it will label me a 'non-conformist' for saying "Politics surely is an ugly thing"...