EPA uses its power on climate change, finally

THE Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a threat to public health is hardly a radical leap. The U.S. Supreme Court would say the agency is doing its job.

Certainly, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's announcement Monday was timed for maximum effect at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, but the legal and regulatory path goes back at least five years.

In 2004, the court said EPA had the authority to enforce clean-air laws, and could trump state laws and insist on the best available technology for factories and power plants. The court did not call for specific action, but said EPA has the muscle if the executive branch is willing to use it. The Bush administration dithered.

Three years later, the high court told EPA that global warming was a challenge to be addressed, and the Bush administration should quit dithering.

Twice the court spoke directly to climate change. The EPA was warned to quit sheltering scofflaws as factories and power plants renovate or add capacity, and the court made it clear the agency could regulate greenhouse gases from autos and other sources under the Clean Air Act.

Jackson's announcement was part of the regulatory process that followed scientific review and public hearings. The conclusion: Carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

EPA and the Obama administration are laying down a clear marker. The agency can draft rules and regulations or Congress can act. Legislation has passed the House and stalled in the Senate.

President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system that creates a market for pollution credits has significant industry support over more EPA rules. So does the idea of national standards instead of a patchwork of regional regulations. Many states, including Washington, did not wait for the Bush administration to act.

Congress has every incentive to act now that regulators have scientific, legal and public-health imperatives on their side.