L.A. Times, Journal Split in View on Endangerment Rule From EPA

The Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal differed sharply in editorials about the EPA ruling declaring GHGs dangerous pollutants. The Times wrote that the "EPA action sends a strong message to the Senate, where progress on a crucial climate bill has stalled. The cap-and-trade system created by the bill is a market-based method for cutting carbon that would be less expensive to industry and consumers than the direct regulatory approach taken by the EPA. In other words: If you don't like cap-and-trade, you'll like the alternative less. That's something even science-denying obstructionists ought to be able to understand."

The Journal editorial, headlined "An Inconvenient Democracy," said: "With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot." The Journal called the endangerment finding "reckless" and a "political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of levelling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA's carbon police will inflict even worse consequences."