multiple previous answers
Personally I would say Theodore Roosevelt. He made conservation of America’s natural resources an important part of his policies and he created the National Wildlife Refuge System. He placed millions of acres of land into federal protection as well.
I would say Lincoln. Although he’s more famous for the Civil War, Lincoln launched many environmental ventures in the US. He signed a bill protecting Yosemite Valley in 1864, which aimed to protect the trees and sparked the national park system. He also authorized the creation of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, and established the US Department of Agriculture. Agriculture has a huge impact on the environment, and was especially influential in the pre-Civil War period (before the large urbanization movements of the late nineteenth century). In my opinion, Roosevelt did substansially more to help the environment, but chronologically, Lincoln came first.
I would say Theodore Roosevelt. Too modern day presidents have played the environmental card, but all they do is say the same things. It’s time for REAL action, not just talking about it. Teddy Roosevelt actually did the things he said he would do.
In my opinion, Theodore Roosevelt was the most environmentally friendly president. During his administration he created the U.S. Forest Service, fifty wildlife refuges, and five national parks; he also set aside 150 million acres of timberland as public domains. Roosevelt was also a naturalist who wrote over thirtyfive books, a lot of which were about the natural world.
All the above are good answers. However from a policy standpoint, Nixon is said to be the most environmental president due to the green movement. He enacted the EPA under an executive order, created Earth Day, and the clean air/water acts upon other small things.
Semantically, I think it depends on what you mean by “environmentally-friendly”. Just to offer a different viewpoint, the argument could be made that George Washington was the most environmentally-friendly president. Living before the industrial revolution, pollution would have been almost nonexistent, agricultural production would have been sustainable (the industrialization of agriculture coincided approximately with the industrial revolution), and much of the United States environment would have been pristine (westward expansion did not begin in earnest until the 19th century).
However, whether the absence of environmental degradation (essential by de facto) can be equated with active environmental protection is debatable. Which is why, all the above said, I cast my vote with the Theodore Roosevelt supporters.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC