On Monday, President Donald Trump praised his administration’s work on the environment. He spoke of the Environmental Protection Agency’s refocusing on its “core mission,” noting, “Last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste cleanups than any year of the previous administrations. … We have done tremendous work on Superfunds.” He also highlighted his signing of the Save Our Seas Act, a joint agreement with Canada and Mexico to combat the growing problem of ocean trash.

Meanwhile, Trump was critical of the Democrats’ Green New Deal, asserting, “It’ll kill millions of jobs. It’ll crush the dreams of the poorest Americans and disproportionately harm minority communities. I will not stand for it. We will defend the environment, but we will also defend American sovereignty, American prosperity, and we will defend American jobs.”

He also highlighted the fact that even after he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, America leads all other signatory nations in emissions reductions. Trump argued, “A strong economy is vital to maintaining a healthy environment,” adding that he believes an environmental policy that penalizes Americans is counterproductive to both Americans and the environment. He cogently observed, “For years politicians told Americans that a strong economy and vibrant energy sector were incompatible with a healthy environment — that one thing doesn’t go with the other.” However, Trump declared, “That’s wrong.”

Predictably, leftists panned Trump’s speech and environmental record because he never acknowledged their pet alarmist issue: climate change. The Hill’s headline serves as case in point: “Trump touts environmental policies, but says nothing of climate change.” The fact of the matter is, Trump recognizes there are actual environmental policies that can be implemented that bring real, demonstrable change. Strangling the economy to fight alleged anthropogenic climate change is simply not one of them. This reality is demonstrated by the fact that the only solution offered is a massive government takeover of the economy to institute some form of socialism, which in turn offers no viable solution to pay for the $93 trillion price tag and for avoiding the certain bankruptcy such a policy would bring upon the nation. And even if we were to implement these drastic draconian policies, we are told that impact upon the global climate would be minimal at best.

So the question is: Who has the better environmental record? Trump has a far better case than do the ecofascists.