Some members of Congress are complaining that the EPA is moving forward in its efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
As Roy and I argue in this National Review Online op-ed, the EPA only has the power that Congress authorizes to the agency. If members of Congress are truly concerned about what the EPA is doing, they will deny the EPA authority to regulate CO2 or other greenhouse gases.
Congress needs to be proactive and push an amendment to the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) has introduced a bill, H.R. 391, to do exactly this. The bill has 148 sponsors (a lot just signed-on). Even though this is a high number, there were 212 House members that voted against the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill. At a minimum, everyone that voted against that bill should be a sponsor of H.R. 391.
As we explain, this is really a good government issue:
This isn?t an environmental issue as much as it is a good-government issue. If Congress leaves the Clean Air Act as it now stands, it will be construed as granting the EPA authority to regulate almost every facet of our lives. Since greenhouse-gas emissions come from most uses of energy, the reach of such regulation could be endless and onerous. The EPA could tell us what cars to drive, where we can live, how our homes must be built, how spacious our homes can be, and how much we need to pay for energy.
This is the kind of power typically exercised by central planners. It can hardly be thought of as consistent with the principles of representative government for the legislative branch, the branch closest to the electorate, to cede this kind of power to an unelected body of technocrats. But that?s what happens when Congress delegates very broad powers to an agency without imposing any clear limits.
Bottom Line: Those concerned with global warming extremism need to hold their members of Congress accountable. If they aren’t sponsoring H.R. 391, then one has to wonder how serious they are about opposing global warming regulation.
