Dear Senator,

First, we've got to say thanks. We don't know how you stand spending so much time in the federal government. Sitting so near all those bureaucrats trying to shut America's economy down must itch like crazy. We'd probably break out in hives after a couple hours, so thanks for going to D.C. on Alaska's behalf.

Anyhoo, we, The Concerned, have been following your fight against the EPA's obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate six well-mixed greenhouse gases emitted from major stationary sources. Last week, you announced your proposed "disapproval resolution," and we're totally behind you. We're just wondering what took you so long. The EPA has been instituting regulations based on scientific findings and various acts of Congress for decades. Can you imagine the nerve? A federal agency proposing rules because Congress and the Supreme Court has told it to!

As you may know already, the U.S. Supreme Court told the EPA to investigate the public health impact of six greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafloride). So it did. The EPA found that those gases do indeed constitute a growing public health hazard that it is therefore obligated to regulate. That so-called "endangerment finding" requires the EPA to take steps toward regulating the gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But this isn't the first time the EPA has turned into a bunch of activists.

Your proposed resolution would make the EPA reverse that endangerment finding, which some critics say is like Congress telling the Surgeon General to ignore evidence that smoking cigarettes is bad for people.

We think a better analogy cuts closer to the bone: It's more like Congress telling the EPA to ignore evidence that that sulfur dioxide and nitric oxides create acid rain. After the EPA regulated emissions of those chemicals, luckily, power companies figured out how to scrub sulfur compounds from their smokestacks, and even to turn the waste into a product they can sell to chemical companies: industrial sulfates. If it weren't for that innovation, that expensive regulation surely would have doomed our entire economy.

That same greenhouse gas endangerment finding recently led the EPA to craft stricter federal standards on new vehicles built by the American auto industry. Those rules were widely supported even though the issue was decided amid one of the darkest times for that industry.

You've been telling people you still support those new rules for cars and light trucks, but we think we've caught on to your awesome plan. You're really trying to revitalize the struggling auto industry by canceling that bunch of onerous new regulations, right? We mean, c'mon, everyone knows that American consumers are comforted to know when their car engines are running, especially if they can just look right at the tailpipe.

Because your disapproval resolution is directed toward the whole endangerment finding, legally speaking, it would negate all the proposed regulations based on it, and even prohibit the EPA from using similar language if it ever again comes to the same endangerment finding. That should keep those activists on a short leash -- right where they belong.