At once a documentation of failures, a record of successes, and a convincing argument for change, Using Marginal Damages in Environmental Policy contends that striking an acceptable balance between environmental and economic health is not an impossible task.

The impact of air quality improvements on individuals' well-being has been the subject of inquiry by many scholars over the past several decades.

This report emphasizes one way that regulations following from the CAA directly influences individuals‟ behavior: through the Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) programs.

Both my own research and reading in the literature suggests that EPA has serious problems in the way it employs scientific information when it assesses both the potential benefits, and potential costs of existing and proposed public policies.

The controversy over the Clean Air Act is worth understanding because it reveals a pivotal development that EPA and the environmental groups would prefer to conceal: the 40-year-old act is no longer a sensible way to regulate large-volume conventional air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s reasons for not using its usual approach to regulating greenhouse gases unwittingly shows that it is obsolete for controlling conventional pollutants. Congress should update the Clean Air Act.

Polls routinely find that most Americans believe air pollution has been getting worse, will worsen in the future, and is still a serious threat to health. The reality is just the opposite: air pollution has been dropping for decades, will continue to do so, and has become a minor factor...

Air Quality in America rebuts mistaken perceptions that U.S. air quality is bad by documenting marked improvements over the past decades.

Schwartz and Hayward offer an alternative analysis of air pollution levels, trends, and prospects in metropolitan areas across the United States.