The Spirit of '76 is alive and well at the Supreme Court. Back then, the colonials rejected the rule of a faraway unaccountable government. After securing their freedom, they quickly organized a government that gave Congress, the duly elected representatives of the people, responsibility for making national policy decisions.
This week, the Supreme Court acted in accord with that spirit by rejecting a power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency and reserving for Congress the right to set far-reaching climate change policy.
The central question in West Virginia v. EPA came down to this: Who is responsible for determining if carbon emissions are a problem and whether something should be done about it?
You may recall that President Barack Obama spent more than a year trying to convince Congress to pass a comprehensive bill to reduce emissions as a way of trying to stem climate change. Ultimately, he even threatened Congress, saying that if lawmakers didn't act to reduce carbon emissions, he would--with his pen and his phone.
Even though his party had a House majority and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Congress balked at capping carbon emissions.
Obama followed through on his threats in the form of the Clean Power Plan--the EPA's proposal to force whole states and utilities to stop using fossil fuels in favor of less reliable and often more expensive sources like wind and solar. Always inventive, Obama asserted that the EPA could stretch the authorities in the Clean Air Act, written in 1970 to deal with toxic pollutants.
On Thursday, the court ruled that Congress must specify authority clearly for an agency to be authorized to implement a policy of such vast economic and political significance.
No matter what your view of climate change, we should all agree that Congress is the right venue to have this issue debated and decided. Unlike the EPA's employees, who can't be voted out of office, lawmakers are accountable to We the People. Representatives and senators can make compromises that include carefully considered trade-offs, and their work will endure past one administration.
President Joe Biden has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030. My colleagues at The Heritage Foundation estimate that taking the steps needed to make such drastic reductions would result in nearly 8 million lost jobs in 2026, a 90 percent increase in gasoline prices, and a more than $7 trillion hit to the economy. That's vast economic significance, indeed.
And it's why carbon capping policy should be debated by Congress, not advanced through rulemaking by unaccountable bureaucrats.
Now, thanks to the West Virginia v. EPA decision, Biden's climate plans and the inevitable trade-offs can be examined through hearings and a robust debate by representatives who are accountable to the people.
Derrick Morgan is the executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation.