The administration could say, “Oh, no you don’t!” But guess what, the envirowhackos will sue the administration based on the Supreme Court ruling that mandates the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Acts.
Let ‘em sue and keep everything tied up in litagation.
I have been saying for decades that the EPA as well as the ESA, the ADA and a few others were sold as radically different proposals than what we are living with, thanks to the ineptitude and scientific ignorance of our judges, and the judicial system generally.
Perhaps the best description of the problem is in a related controversy, the process of degeneration of a "good idea" is identical with the current global warming hoax. But the 60s Environment "concerns" validated the process and we are all losers as a result.
The description of this degeneration goes something like this:
It was to advise governments on these and related issues, such as the impact of very large public projects spanning several states and huge watersheds that the study of the "environment" was initiated in the late 60s, when it became evident that, politically, caring about something "environmentally" critical was the most efficient means of controlling the normal progress of society.
Essentially, the EPA and the ESA and ADA neither carry out research nor monitor the results of their limitless "rulemaking". Their role was simply to advise the lawmakers, and it was up to them to decide whether anything needed to be done, on a case by case basis. Allowing projects to proceed in spite of 'negative impacts' was always assumed to be an option. In practice, this has never happened.
No serious enough national crisis (up to now) has ever snapped our leadership out of their apparent stupor .
Remember, the original purpose was to provide a synthesis of what was happening in the field, and to inform the governments (lawmakers) of what the facts are so they can choose to adopt appropriate legislation.
Here's where there was a large left turn into socialist fascism.
Despite the very real dangers inherent in giving any organization a "national" quasi-monopoly of official scientific and social advice, on balance it was a sensible step to take. Unfortunately, in most important respects the resulting bureaucracies (a dereliction of duty of congress, and an illegal transfer of legislative power) have become seriously flawed. This should be obvious to everyone who traces the evolution of these alphabet-soup federal agencies.
The problem stems in part from the fact that what was intended as fact-finding and analytical exercises to inform legislators at all levels, mysteriously mutated in the minds of those who head them into something more like politically correct alarmist pressure groups, implementing legal requirements astronomocally expensive in comparison to the returns, and totally insentitive to reason, perspective and necessary compromise.
In that universe, the words "compromise" or "trade offs" don't exist!
Perhaps now we have an opportunity to slap our incompetent Congress back to reality, and to practice the responsible leadership so sorely needed.
With credit for the observations made in An Appeal to Reason, by Nigel Lawson, Duckworth Overlook, 2008, ISBN 978-1-5902-0084-1