I’m no tree-hugger, but…
First of all, let me state that by no means do I consider myself a hippie or tree-hugger. I have cut down many a tree in my day in order to fuel our fireplace growing up, and I love my gas-guzzling trucks. However, I am also able to realize that when billions of people are stoking their fires and burning gasoline as fast as they can get it pumped into their vehicles that the Earth’s ecosystems suffer. 
Unfortunately, many of my fellow republican (and other party goers alike) seem to be unwilling to submit to this rather common sense conclusion and instead stick by their proverbial guns insisting scientists are wrong and they in their limited knowledge of the physical sciences know what’s right for the Earth. The facts are that the more fossil fuels we burn, the more contamination is introduced into the air that we breathe. When these gases such as nitric and sulfuric acids react in the atmosphere, acid rain results. The greater the amount of these gases released into the atmosphere, the lower the pH of the acid rain (meaning the rain is more acidic). Acid rain contaminates our lakes and streams (our drinking water), and has been shown to stunt tree growth or kill forests altogether (read more here on air pollution and acid rain: http://goo.gl/Xk7MW). So given these three simple facts:
1) Burning fossil fuels causes harmful gases to be released into the atmosphere
2) When gases such as these (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide) react in the atmosphere, acid rain forms
3) Acid rain is harmful to the lakes, streams, and forests
It only makes sense that we try to find ways to reduce air pollution. But many politicians seem to have a difference in opinion on the matter. They believe that we do not need to find new ways to reduce air pollution further because air pollution has been decreasing over the course of the last 20 years or so (Jim Inhofe is one such politician — he states that regulations do not need to be tighter because air pollution is at an “all-time low”). Here you can find evidence by the EPA that indeed air pollution has decreased substantially over the past 20 years: http://goo.gl/YVerD. However, just because our current regulations have helped to lower the dangerous gases in the air, that doesn’t mean we should cease in finding other ways to diminish them even further! Additionally, many politicians do not think we need to find ways to protect our sacred National Parks and the wild game and forests sprawling freely there within. Its seems as if many of those opposed to eco-friendly legislation are afraid they will look like a “tree-hugger” or a hippie if they vote in favor of pro-ecosystem legislation.
Again, I love my fossil fuel burning trucks and the logs in my fireplace, but I love our beautiful Earth (with its lush forests, beautiful lakes and streams, and wild game) more. I realize that I, much like many other people, will likely find it hard to break bad habits such as driving gas-guzzling vehicles unless there is some incentive or downside for not doing so. I am not saying we should prohibit anyone from driving a Ford F150 (such as I do), but I do think that legislation that makes it more profitable and beneficial not to do so would be very helpful.
To summarize, the U.S. is making great strides in reducing pollution. But, let us continue to seek new and innovative (or legislative) ways to reduce pollution even further so that our children may inherit a more beautiful Earth than what we found it to be.
On that note, please do all you can to plant a tree, hug a tree, whatever you feel is appropriate to get the message out that anti-Earth legislation or lack of pro-Earth legislation is not OK and you will not stand for it any longer.
Say no to deforestation.
Go Earth.
