The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) inaction on carbon emissions thus far has been nothing short of mind-boggling. For almost two years, the national agency has denied California a waiver that would force auto makers to reduce emissions.

This proposed state program would finally force auto makers to curb pollution. However, the EPA has, until recently, staunchly opposed this proposal, citing a long-held stance that it has no authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Not until April, when California and other states sued the EPA and the Supreme Court declared that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant," did the EPA finally even begin considering allowing states to limit tailpipe emissions.

This inaction is emblematic of a bigger problem in the EPA. In March 2005, nine states, including California and New York, sued the EPA again for denying that another substance, mercury, did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act. The organization even suppressed the publication of a study it commissioned by Harvard University that directly contradicted its stance that mercury emissions are not harmful to humans.

Time after time, Bush has not redressed the problem, but rather worsened it by nominating administrators to the EPA whose interests are far from preserving the earth. First there was Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator who took over in 2001, and immediately began challenging the veracity of global warming. Then there was Michael Levitt who took over in 2003 and stated that the EPA had no authority to regulate carbon emissions because they do not fall under the definition of an air pollutant. Now, there is the current administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, who refused to cancel the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which advocated testing pesticides on humans.

Maybe it's time for the agency to actually do its job–protect the environment.