Congress should avoid war on EPA

The failure of Congress to pass major legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions leaves that task in the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency. Well, the EPA is acting, as it should. But some lawmakers are reacting with ominous threats of anti-regulatory warfare.

Congress gave this job to the EPA. It passed the Clean Air Act of 1963, then major amendments in 1970, 1977 and 1990. And it created the EPA to carry out its provisions.

The agency wasn't always zealous about using that power to the fullest. Under President George W. Bush, it decided that the statute did not give it the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming. That triggered litigation by state and local governments and environmentalists to get the EPA to do its duty.

Finally, in the 2007 case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court said the act's language was broad enough to cover carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants the agency can regulate.

Two centuries ago, the atmosphere contained 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Today, it's 388. Many scientists say it must get below 350, to avert the worst-case global warming scenarios.

The 2007 Supreme Court decision focused on vehicle emissions, but the language it interpreted runs throughout the act, covering other sectors of the economy as well. Now, in settling two lawsuits, the EPA has announced a schedule for imposing standards on power plants and oil refineries, which account for almost 40 percent of those emissions. The final ones will be issued in 2012, by which time the courts likely will have decided on challenges to the new rules.

Those EPA's actions alone won't bring about the 80 percent cut in emissions by 2050 that scientists say we need. But it's a start. The Supreme Court, the clear language of the Clean Air Act and the urgency of doing something leave EPA no choice but to move ahead.

Still, key players in the new Congress, like Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who'll chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are riled. He promises his committee will grill the EPA's administrator, Lisa Jackson, so often that she'll have her own Capitol Hill parking spot.

But Upton and his allies should be careful. After winning control of the House in 1994, Republicans tried to pass anti-environment riders, but failed. One of President Barack Obama's closest advisers is Carol Browner, EPA administrator under Clinton. If Obama backs Jackson and her agency and doesn't back down on the environment - an issue that always resonates with voters in polls - the opponents of regulation have a chance to lose another round.

If congressional critics think the Clean Air Act shouldn't be used to control global warming, their best remedy is not to harass the EPA or cut its funding, but to pass comprehensive legislation to curb emissions and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. hN