About my assessment, most recently set forth below, that EPA and the Obama administration are simply hoping to scare weak-kneed D.C. trade associations to come begging for a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade rationing scheme as a way to escape a regulation-wielding agency, my colleague Marlo Lewis makes some excellent points, here.
The greens now acknowledge (well, when they’re not denying it — depends on what suits their political purposes) that for EPA to declare that C02 from U.S. tailpipes poses an “endangerment” to human health and the environment would unleash a torrent of economy-killing — oh, and administration- and other career-dooming — consequences. (Sadly, the Bush administration chose not to emphasize those consequences when litigating the claim that the provision at issue somehow really requires regulating CO2.)
As such, the Court didn’t consider this when making their (inexplicable in other ways, as well) ruling in Mass. v. EPA, leaving it to a different set of politicians to do so, now that the Court has instructed EPA to either make such a determination or ground a reason for not doing so in the statute. The question remains, will these activist pols and bureaucrats be the latest undeserving parties to be bailed out, or will industry trade associations bite any quivering lips and make these people show us just how badly they want to impose these economy-killing consequences?