This is not true. The problem is that you come from a position based on a series of incorrect premises:
1. Global Warming is a provable dangerous phenomenon that is caused by, and can be altered by, human activity.
2. Environmental policies enacted by the U.S. over the last 20 years were done so with the intent of improving the health and safety of our natural environment.
3. That republicans are opposed to environmental protection.

All 3 are patently false.

Not only has climate change not been properly quantified thanks to inconsistent data, inaccurate models, and a lack of sample size, that cause cannot be anywhere close to attributed to man, the sun, or geothermal activity, or all of the above and in what quantities, the "97% consensus" is based on a complete fabrication that has been repeated ad-nauseum, and all of the data supporting the narrative of climate change and all of the solutions come from socialist, government, and/or quasi-government entities. The purpose of climate change legislation is not to help the environment, because there is no where near enough data to make any conclusions on environmental impact. The purpose is wealth redistribution. The idea is to tax fossil fuel consumption; the world's cheapest, most efficient, and most widely consumed fuel; and distribute that money to 3rd world governments and traders. This policy will make conducting business impossible for nearly all small and medium sized businesses, meaning only the biggest survive. In the meantime, it will tax the U.S. citizens and industry into oblivion to redistribute wealth all over the world. The replacements are always dirtier, less efficient, and more environmentally harmful outcomes. Nuclear results in radioactive waste. Solar requires lithium batteries which are insanely toxic. Ethanol requires more energy than it gives off, burns dirtier than gasoline, is less efficient than gasoline, and corrodes engines.

2. Environmental protection ceased to be the goal of the EPA a very long time ago. The real environmentalists, are mostly conservatives. They are hunters and conservationists. Environmentalists are mostly communist lawyers. Their job is to stop development by any means possible. What they do is find excuses to make developing property more expensive. Whether it is piling on increasing studies and permits, roping off areas for conservation of "species" (which are typically just sub-breeds of common species, but if they can pay one professor to say it is a distinct species, they win), etc, they get their wish by making construction of just about anything (road, dam, power plant, suburban sprawl, etc) prohibitively expensive. If the goal were environmental conservation, they would loathe and oppose windmills, which kill thousands of birds every single year. No, they only care about stopping development, increasing government power, increasing government payrolls, and getting more money in donations and legal fees. Sue and settle is the name of the game.

3. Republicans are not opposed to environmental protection. We all want clean air, clean water, and healthy forests and fields. The problem is that our government's Environmental Protection Agency has been infested by Communists and career government bureaucrats and have twisted the agency to be used as a hammer against industry. They no longer care about protecting our health. Their new regs are typically just more stringent to inflict higher costs on industry and rarely even attempt to justify them with quantifying impact. They don't even try to justify them with lives saved or animals saved.

21st century environmentalism, especially AGW, is nothing more than a scam, a front for Communism and the runaway police state.