Most justices try to time their resignations, nothing new there. It has less to do with politics and more to do with looking at who is most likely to be nominated to replace them and whether that class of potential Justices follows their leanings on Constitutional interpretation.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
The next time a Republican wins, I'm not so sure it will be the Republican party we know today. I think it's exceedingly likely that sometime in the next decade the Tea Party will be jettisoned from the (R) party and that they'll reform themselves into something actual moderates and independents (as opposed to the surging numbers of fake independents who are really just missing the (R) tag) could vote for.
Who knows, they may even like the EPA again. They're the ones who created it in the first place.
Some of it just comes down to cost vs unseen benefits. Others just to normal political taking sides and kickbacks, sure. If the sides don't have something to argue about, then how would they raise money?
A lot of the issues with past environmental bills/treaties come down to the "tax the wealthy" idea, with some nations (like USA) being the wealthy, and less developed nations having reduced responsibility. I've not kept track of stuff, so not sure what the latest.
Seriously, most of the die-hards that I know that don't understand climate change, also believe in the chem-trail conspiracies.I'm no Republican, but I'm disinclined to paint them in quite this negative of a light. Are you really saying that Republicans can comprehend that soot is bad, but are baffled by the idea that things that they can't see in the atmosphere might not be great either?
So it's simple really, pass laws that reduce green house gases and call it the "Chem Trail Reduction Act For Cleaner Air".