Gardner’s environmental record in Congress is abysmal. First of all, he is a fervent climate-change denier. Gardner was one of at least a dozen Republicans on the House Energy & Commerce Committee who made public statements indicating that they question or reject the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is predominantly human-caused. Quoting him, “I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news.”

The respected League of Conservation Voters has given Gardner a 4 percent score for his 2013 congressional actions and a lifetime score of 9 percent, one of the worst records, even in the conservative Republican House. The many bills he voted against included restricting the release of toxic pesticides into waterways, enhancing nuclear safety, encouraging research on clean energy, protection from harmful air pollution and standards on fracking. At the same time, he voted to cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 90 percent, eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency, restrict the public’s right to review and comment on environmental matters, and continue billions in subsidies for big oil, along with dozens of other anti-environmental bills.

Contrast Gardner’s record with that of Sen. Mark Udall, who has a 92 percent 2013 record and 97 percent lifetime record from the LCV. If you care about the environment, do you want a senator with a 97 percent record or one with a 9 percent record?

John Porco

Durango