Why Sweeping Regulations Won't End Air Pollution

TL;DR

Air quality is affected by both emissions and variable environmental conditions like heat, cold, and wind.
U.S. emissions of six primary air pollutants have decreased by 79% since 1970 due to regulations and economic shifts away from coal.
Current air pollution issues are increasingly driven by 'miscellaneous' sources like wildfires and agricultural emissions, not just traditional smokestacks.
Particulate matter (PM2.5) is a major pollutant, but less than a third of its emissions come from easily regulated combustion sources in the U.S.
There is a debate on the marginal benefits and costs of further pollution abatement, as low-cost opportunities are likely already captured.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule is cited as an example where benefits were largely from cobenefits (particulate matter) rather than the targeted pollutant (mercury), and was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The author suggests that regulators may use the goal of reducing air pollution to justify costly regulations, sometimes without sufficient evidence of net social benefit.
Increased regulatory burdens can lead to a decline in institutional credibility.
The author advocates for policymakers to use the best available information and methodology for regulations, ensuring they deliver actual social net benefits.

Continue reading the original article