In addition to all the other problems it causes, there is now pretty strong evidence that air pollution is a factor in diabetes.

The mainstream media is not providing wall-to-wall coverage on the Trump administration’s attack on benefit-cost analysis. So let me just point out that a lot of the benefits used to justify regulations are based on air pollution, where the benefits appear to massively outweigh the costs of the regulations. Trump is attacking the methods used by government agencies to make these estimates. They probably can use some updates based on the latest science and risk management approaches, but I don’t think the basic conclusions are likely to change.

I happen to be in the water pollution regulation business, and I happen to know that the benefit-cost case for further regulation on the water side can be a bit flimsy in terms of human health. A few reasons for this are that a lot of progress has already been made in recent decades, drinking water treatment technology is pretty good and not as dependent as you might think on source water quality, and other than a few sandy ocean beaches the public is just not recreating in natural water bodies all that much. None of this is to say that we can afford to roll back the progress we have made, or that we have come close to restoring anything like the highly diverse and productive aquatic ecosystems of the past, which have simply disappeared from memory. We are all worried about chemicals in our water and food and want to be cautious, but again there is not overwhelming evidence that the low levels of useful chemicals in them are doing us more harm than good. But air pollution is not like this. It is absolutely unambiguous that the benefits of reducing air pollution outweigh the costs by a huge margin. Don’t believe any propaganda or disinformation you hear to the contrary.