Restrictions on power plant emissions are the latest manifestation of President Obama's go-it-alone strategy.
Any proposal to address climate change will attract opposition. Obama's mandate has drawn opposition coupled with indignation. In this case, criticism from members of Congress, legal challenges and opposition from states are among early reactions.
In announcing his plan Monday, Obama said, "We're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and we're the last generation that can do something about it. We only get one planet. There is no Plan B."
But other plans, and possibilities, do exist. In addition, the case can be made that a number of existing initiatives are addressing emissions, energy alternatives and other climate change concerns.
Obama's statement reveals the flaws in his unilateral, absolutist approach. It is reminiscent of his nuclear deal with Iran, which he has promoted under the guise that the only options are to support the plan or prepare for war.
Both approaches not only avoid any attempt at consensus; they are exaggerations, oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
His approaches are unfortunate, because the motivations - to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to address the potential consequences of climate change - are not without merit.
But just as the Iran deal ignores citizens who don't trust Iran, so the energy restrictions bypass not only citizens who reject climate change, but those who favor a more measured, balanced approach to addressing it.
Addressing climate change - even under Obama's proposal - is a long-term challenge.
The components include major changes in our culture, our energy industry, employment, the economy and more. In an op-ed elsewhere on this page, Brad Jones, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, estimates the annual cost for a family of four at $1,700.
Supporters of Obama's plan likely would dispute that number or cite offsetting savings.
Which brings us to the bottom line, which is that a decision of this magnitude - affecting the lives and lifestyles of every U.S. citizen - must be made through consensus, not executive fiat.
Despite Obama's alarmist pronouncement, our nation - by consensus achieved through representative government - has been addressing energy and climate issues for some time.
The government has implemented fuel economy standards for vehicles, emissions regulations for industry, incentives to conserve energy and to develop alternate energy sources, and much more. And "green initiatives" from a variety of sectors have encouraged citizens to "recycle, reuse and reduce."
How we alter the pace and scope of addressing climate change must not be decided by a lone, imperious mandate; it must be decided collectively by the citizenry.