I don't know where you're getting your figures from.  The administration has been consistent in selling off to private industries untold acres of small packets of land under BLM.  They're scattered around the country and one hardly notices it if, say, 1,000 pristine acres in Arkansas suddenly sprouts condos.

Your claim may be correct in that Bush set aside a huge amount of space for an underwater park in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  It is the SINGLE notable "green" move on his part -- without being sarcastic.  It was cost-free and has no resources, so none of his friends get hurt in the process.

 If you can seriously defend Bush's policies as a conservationist, well, then, it's extremely unlikely that anything will change your mind, but I'd refer anyone who's interested in Bush's legacy to the League of Conservation Voters web site for an objective assessment (lcv.org).  The LCV isn't partisan.  They're not afraid to hand out points to anyone of either party who's earned them.

"By setting targets that are 40 years away are worthless," is not only ungrammatical but untrue, if I understand what you're saying.