EPA emits a power grab

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions makes sense. Seeking that reduction via arbitrary bureaucratic fiat does not. And the Environmental Protection Agency's declaration Monday that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are now officially classified as a "threat" to public health was an overreach of agency authority that ultimately could hinder, not help, the cause of limiting such emissions.

Indeed, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that President Obama "still believes the best way to move forward" on reducing carbon emissions "is through the legislative process."

We agree. We also agree with the president that carbon emissions should be lowered.

We do wonder, though, why the president, in light of his correct assertions that Congress is the proper body to decide this issue, didn't direct EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to refrain from this unprecedented expansion of the agency's authority.

Another drawback of Monday's announcement was its timing -- the day of the opening of the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen. That lends credence to the theory that it was designed to impress the delegates at that conference. And it fuels the fires of those who see a vast, left-wing conspiracy in the efforts to counter global warming.

Many Americans retain serious doubts about carbon emissions' effects on climate change, especially in the wake of a scientific scandal about the fudging of data to support the case for lowering carbon emissions (see William Murchison's column on this page). Many Americans are understandably wary about adding costly new regulatory burdens on industry while the national unemployment rate remains in double digits.

Such concerns helped doom the Obama administration's attempts to get a cap-and-trade bill on carbon emissions this year. But neither that legislative failure nor a dubious 2007 Supreme Court ruling allowing the EPA to classify greenhouse gases as pollutants justifies the EPA's power grab. That court decision stretched the application of the 1970 Clean Air Act far beyond its congressional intent, and Ms. Jackson's decision is bound to send this matter back to the courts -- and to further harden the opposition to the practical measures needed to reduce carbon emissions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has angered some constituents -- and some conservatives beyond our state's borders -- by advocating bipartisan compromise on carbon cap-and-trade proposals. After the EPA's unwarranted takeover of this matter Monday, Sen. Graham issued a written statement warning that "regulation of carbon by unaccountable bureaucrats at EPA is the worst possible outcome."

President Obama should minimize the damage by instructing Ms. Jackson to wait for congressional action on carbon emissions. And Congress should do its duty by crafting legislation that reduces those emissions without reducing the prospects for economic recovery.