Perhaps things aren’t as bad as they seem on EPA greenhouse gas decision

Using the EPA, the Obama administration put a gun to Congress’ head, in his quest for a cap and trade energy policy. Because cap and trade is such a poison pill, Congress has been unable to pass the legislation. So the administration announced the EPA would regulate greenhouse gases because they endanger our health. While this is the sort of change the environazis have been waiting for, it’s certainly not the kind of change most voters had in mind last November.

Should the EPA begin regulating CO2 there will be severe economic consequences. But perhaps things aren’t as bad as they appear. Kimberly Strassel believes the administration has given Congress another reason not to pass cap and trade, and the EPA could be tied up in litigation for some time to come.

The Obama administration now owns this political hot potato,” says one industry source. “If I’m [Nebraska Senator] Ben Nelson or [North Dakota Senator] Kent Conrad, why would I ever want to take it back?”All the more so, in Congress’s view, because the EPA “command and control” threat may yet prove hollow. Now that the endangerment finding has become reality, the litigation is also about to become real. Green groups pioneered the art of environmental lawsuits. It turns out the business community took careful notes.

Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don’t underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.

But the EPA’s legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide “science” showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide “net benefits” to the West, this is a tall order.

Then there are the rules stemming from the finding. Not wanting to take on the political nightmare of regulating every American lawn mower, the EPA has produced a “tailoring rule” that it says allows it to focus solely on large greenhouse gas emitters. Yet the Clean Air Act—authored by Congress—clearly directs the EPA to also regulate small emitters.

This is where green groups come in. The tailoring rule “invites suits,” says Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who has emerged as a top Senate watchdog of EPA actions. Talk of business litigation aside, Mr. Barrasso sees “most of the lawsuits coming from the environmental groups” who want to force the EPA to regulate everything. The agency is going to get hit from all directions. Even if these outsiders don’t win their suits, they have the ability to twist up the regulations for a while.

While the greenies certainly won’t be happy about this, trial lawyers should be ecstatic.