Should the EPA regulate CO2???

I am firmly against the EPA putting forth regulations on CO2..which is not a pollutant...

An internal government memorandum that came to light on Tuesday challenged the scientific and economic basis of a proposed Environmental Protection Agency finding that climate-altering gases are a threat to human health and welfare.

The undated and unsigned government document, marked “Deliberative — Attorney Client Privilege,” was compiled by the White House Office of Management and Budget from comments offered by various agencies. A White House official said that many of the criticisms and suggestions came from holdovers from the administration of President George W. Bush and had been rejected by Obama appointees.

The nine-page document was part of a multiagency review of the proposed E.P.A. finding and had little impact on the final agency document, which was issued on April 17, officials said. But opponents of the Obama administration’s approach to the regulation of heat-trapping gases seized on the memorandum in a flurry of press statements and in a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

The document said the proposed finding that greenhouse gases threatened health and the environment was not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor on a number of issues.

It also said that the E.P.A.’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act would have “serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

The document also questioned the agency’s inclusion of gases that are believed to contribute to global warming without proving that they had adverse health effects.

Some of the objections mirror longstanding criticism of the proposed E.P.A. action from Republicans and business lobbies who say that the Clean Air Act is the wrong instrument for combating global warming and that such regulation will have devastating effects on the economy.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, waved the document at Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. Barrasso called it a “smoking gun” that proved that the proposed finding was based on politics, not science.

“This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business,” Mr. Barrasso said. “This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America.”