If you studied logic in high school, you probably learned about a style of argument called “reductio ad absurdum.” Reduction arguments are persuasive because they simply accept all the premises of the opposing side, then draw absurd conclusions, demonstrating that the premises themselves must be flawed. When you pose such arguments to a reasonable person, you can often convince him to rethink his position. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency is anything but reasonable. The EPA wants to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, something the Supreme Court ruled it could do in an ill-advised and narrow 2007 decision. The problem is that the Clean Air Act became law decades before our current state of paranoia over the effects of man-made global warming. The law was never meant to regulate carbon, and this is abundantly obvious from the language of the law itself.

The Clean Air Act’s statutory language applies to entities that emit more than 100 tons of a “pollutant” each year. When applied to ozone or smog, this standard makes sense because it covers major polluters but leaves your grocery store, your church, your nearest hospital, and your office building alone. But when applied to carbon, it ensnares nearly 600,000 medium- to large-sized facilities nationwide. This would create massive compliance burdens and a likely rebellion among business owners.