I don't disagree with much of what you say, Ed.
I agree that the EPA is not capable of solving the global warming "problem" any more than international bodies have been able to. I believe we need to get beyond global warming and concentrate on unlocking our human potential for adaptaion and innovation to address what changes may be coming our way, however great or small.
I also agree that the "proper role of US EPA is developing and implementing regulations to achieve the objectives of legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President."
That said, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote in 2007 that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA "has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal." (NY Times, April 3, 2007)
My post was reporting on the results of a recent survey that found Americans "strongly trust the EPA to deal with clean air standards more than Congress."
If the Supreme Court and the American people believe the EPA should fulfill the Clean Air Act, they should be allowed to do so.
I want to make sure Administrator Jackson performs her duties in a way that is fair and balanced and kept in check. And I agree with you that "She should not be permitted to do so with impunity."
(Nevertheless, I still think "taking out to the woodshed" is a poor choice of metaphor.)
Thanks for the dialog.