The folks at the National Wildlife Federation blog seem to think that a decision that carbon dioxide "endangers" public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act could emerge from the Environmental Protection Agency any day now. They call such a decision a "game changer." In my latest column for Science Progress, I depicted EPA action as one of the "knobs" that we can use to fine-tune climate policy; a so-called "endangerment" finding would be equivalent to throwing that knob to full blast, because it basically requires EPA to start putting in place restrictions on CO2. Certainly it will heighten the debate that you can already sense brewing here over whether letting EPA lead on climate policy, while Congress drags its feet, is a good idea.
On the pro side: Could make industry groups, like the Climate Action Partnership, lobby Congress for a cap and trade bill to be passed. On the con side: Could make Republicans salivate at the idea of hammering the administration during the mid-term elections for EPA's rouge economy-destroying behavior, thus fanning the flames of GOP obstructionism. (The John Fleck position.)
Which side do you folks think has the better case?