It would be nice if our politicians had the best interests of the people in mind when making decisions. Obviously there are good politicians and it's a complicated subject, but I think most informed people would agree that the current cabinet in the US is only interested in serving itself. I truly, honestly, would love to hear evidence that they are making laws or acting in such a way as to help the people where there is no obvious benefit to themselves (usually money).

Politicians are cogs in a system that doesn't give a shit about the people or the life supporting qualities of our environment. Things would be different if we had democracies instead of the aristocraties / oligarchies / autocraties we currently have around the globe.

Besides, politicians are not making decisions nowadays.

If this were going to help -- if the people who want to gut the EPA were inclined to care enough about the country's air and water quality -- they wouldn't have to go to China. They could just read about the past in the US.

You have to experience it to care.

In my experience, if someone had a good head on their shoulders they merely have to use the lessons of the past as guidelines for what you do (or not do) in the future.

I haven't seen a politician like that in a while, but they have existed.

This is not only the US but the whole industrial / coal revolution. But I think they do know about that already.

Here is how it works:

1. start with moderate regulations in the USA

2. switch to tough regulations in the USA

3. industry moves to a place with lax regulations

4. pollution blows across the ocean

5. the USA gets smog

It seems we went wrong at step 2, unless you'd like to stop international trade. By being extra strict, we actually got more pollution. We'd have better air and water if we partially gutted the EPA.

We have failed at keeping our water and air clean, and we also lost our jobs.

I don't think this is an accurate picture:

1. Job growth has increased overall by every measure since the EPA has started. Regulations mainly affect industrial manufacturing jobs, and job growth in most of those is more affected by automation than environmental regulation.

2. Overall air and water pollution is down substantially in the U.S. since we've put tougher regulations in place. What this article seems to be saying is that we're reaching the point where toughing EPA regulations further won't do as much to improve air quality since half of the remaining air pollution is coming from outside the country.

3. International trade regulations and consumer actions can still reduce some pollution outside of the U.S. simply by making more environmental friendly manufacturing a selling point for your products. It won't have as much effect for heavy industry, which is what produces most of the pollution, but it can and has made a difference in electronics and use of plastics in packaging.

Not really; even with the smog the US has now that this contributes to, it is far less than before regulation, and shifting comparative advantage away from dirty manufacturing hasn't reduced the average rate of aggregate growth in the US.

The economic problems experienced everywhere but the top of the income distribution in the US are entirely distributional problems, not aggregate activity problems, and they stem from policies which have deliberately shifted retained gains up the distribution over the past 40 years or so (Reagan's tax shift being a major early contribution.) "Job losses" to outsourcing and immigration are convenient distractions because they are easy to conceptualize, but they don't really reflect the substance of the real problems.

Shanghai isn't even considered bad for China.

I go there a lot and never felt it was that bad and also to Beijing which feels far worse; the worst I have been recently was Hong Kong. I immediately had burning lungs coming out of the plane. My Google Now kept telling to stay inside and it felt like that was a good plan. But Shanghai/Suzhou were I spend a lot of time are ok.

Looking here [0] India seems scary. Have not been there for 10 years, I remember it as dirty but not necessarily the air.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_polluted_cities...

HK is at 91 ATM, which isn't really bad. Most of the time, HK and SZ have relatively mild pollution by Chinese standards.

I know but I was just there last week. Its shocking to see, especially when you fly through it.