Connect with us

Blog

America’s clean air rules boost health and economy − charts show what EPA’s deregulation plans ignore

Published

on

Last Updated on May 21, 2025 by Daily News Staff

clean air
Regulations have cleaned up cars, power plants and factories, leaving cleaner air while economies have grown.
Cavan Images/Josh Campbell via Getty Images

Richard E. Peltier, UMass Amherst

The Trump administration is “reconsidering” more than 30 air pollution regulations, and it offered industries a brief window to apply for exemptions that would allow them to stop following many air quality regulations immediately if approved. All of the exemptions involve rules finalized in 2024 and include regulations for hazardous air pollutants that cause asthma, heart disease and cancer.

The results – if regulations are ultimately rolled back and if those rollbacks and any exemptions stand up to court challenges – could impact air quality across the United States.

“Reconsideration” is a term used to review or modify a government regulation. While Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin provided few details, the breadth of the regulations being reconsidered affects all Americans. They include rules that set limits for pollutants that can harm human health, such as ozone, particulate matter and volatile organic carbon.

Zeldin wrote on March 12, 2025, that his deregulation moves would “roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden “taxes” on U.S. families.“

What Zeldin didn’t say is that the economic and health benefits from decades of federal clean air regulations have far outweighed their costs. Some estimates suggest every $1 spent meeting clean air rules has returned $10 in health and economic benefits.

How far America has come, because of regulations

In the early 1970s, thick smog blanketed American cities and acid rain stripped forests bare from the Northeast to the Midwest.

Air pollution wasn’t just a nuisance – it was a public health emergency. But in the decades since, the United States has engineered one of the most successful environmental turnarounds in history.

Thanks to stronger air quality regulations, pollution levels have plummeted, preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. And despite early predictions that these regulations would cripple the economy, the opposite has proven true: The U.S. economy more than doubled in size while pollution fell, showing that clean air and economic growth can – and do – go hand in hand.

The numbers are eye-popping.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the first 20 years of the Clean Air Act, from 1970 to 1990, found the economic benefits of the regulations were about 42 times greater than the costs.

The EPA later estimated that the cost of air quality regulations in the U.S. would be about US$65 billion in 2020, and the benefits, primarily in improved health and increased worker productivity, would be around $2 trillion. Other studies have found similar benefits.

That’s a return of more than 30 to 1, making clean air one of the best investments the country has ever made.

Science-based regulations even the playing field

The turning point came with the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, which put in place strict rules on pollutants from industry, vehicles and power plants.

These rules targeted key culprits: lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter – substances that contribute to asthma, heart disease and premature deaths. An example was the removal of lead, which can harm the brain and other organs, from gasoline. That single change resulted in far lower levels of lead in people’s blood, including a 70% drop in U.S. children’s blood-lead levels.

A line graph that shows declining lead used in gasoline with declining blood lead levels from 1976-1980.
Air Quality regulations lowered the amount of lead being used in gasoline, which also resulted in rapidly declining lead concentrations in the average American between 1976-1980. This shows us how effective regulations can be at reducing public health risks to people.
USEPA/Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (1986)

The results have been extraordinary. Since 1980, emissions of six major air pollutants have dropped by 78%, even as the U.S. economy has more than doubled in size. Cities that were once notorious for their thick, choking smog – such as Los Angeles, Houston and Pittsburgh – now see far cleaner air, while lakes and forests devastated by acid rain in the Northeast have rebounded.

Chart shows economy growing 321% while emissions of common pollutants fell.
Comparison of growth areas and declining emissions, 1970-2023.
EPA

And most importantly, lives have been saved. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically estimate the costs and benefits of air quality regulations. In the most recent estimate, released in 2011, the EPA projected that air quality improvements would prevent over 230,000 premature deaths in 2020. That means fewer heart attacks, fewer emergency room visits for asthma, and more years of healthy life for millions of Americans.

The economic payoff

Critics of air quality regulations have long argued that the regulations are too expensive for businesses and consumers. But the data tells a very different story.

EPA studies have confirmed that clean air regulations improve air quality over time. Other studies have shown that the health benefits greatly outweigh the costs. That pays off for the economy. Fewer illnesses mean lower health care costs, and healthier workers mean higher productivity and fewer missed workdays.

The EPA estimated that for every $1 spent on meeting air quality regulations, the United States received $9 in benefits. A separate study by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research in 2024 estimated that each $1 spent on air pollution regulation brought the U.S. economy at least $10 in benefits. And when considering the long-term impact on human health and climate stability, the return is even greater.

On a smoggy day, downtown is barely visible.
Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles in 1984: Smog was a common problem in the 1970s and 1980s.
Ian Dryden/Los Angeles Times/UCLA Archive/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

The next chapter in clean air

The air Americans breathe today is cleaner, much healthier and safer than it was just a few decades ago.

Yet, despite this remarkable progress, air pollution remains a challenge in some parts of the country. Some urban neighborhoods remain stubbornly polluted because of vehicle emissions and industrial pollution. While urban pollution has declined, wildfire smoke has become a larger influence on poor air quality across the nation.

That means the EPA still has work to do.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

If the agency works with environmental scientists, public health experts and industry, and fosters honest scientific consensus, it can continue to protect public health while supporting economic growth. At the same time, it can ensure that future generations enjoy the same clean air and prosperity that regulations have made possible.

By instead considering retracting clean air rules, the EPA is calling into question the expertise of countless scientists who have provided their objective advice over decades to set standards designed to protect human lives. In many cases, industries won’t want to go back to past polluting ways, but lifting clean air rules means future investment might not be as protective. And it increases future regulatory uncertainty for industries.

The past offers a clear lesson: Investing in clean air is not just good for public health – it’s good for the economy. With a track record of saving lives and delivering trillion-dollar benefits, air quality regulations remain one of the greatest policy success stories in American history.

This article, originally published March 12, 2025, has been updated with the administration’s offer of exemptions for industries.

Richard E. Peltier, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, UMass Amherst

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading
Advertisement SodaStream USA, inc

College Life

Is College Worth It? New U.S. News Rankings Put More Weight on What Graduates Earn

Is college worth it? MIT has taken the No. 1 spot in the 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, ending Princeton’s 15-year run. But a new Earnings by Major metric could be even more important for families asking whether college is worth the investment.

Published

on

For millions of students and families, choosing a college increasingly comes down to a basic question: Is college worth it?

Is College Worth It? College students outside a university campus with tuition, student loan and graduate earnings imagery illustrating the question of whether college is worth the cost.
College students stand outside a modern university campus as symbols of tuition costs, student loans, graduation and future earnings highlight the financial question facing many families: Is college worth the investment?

The latest U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges rankings are attempting to provide another piece of information to help answer that question.

The 2027 rankings place the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at No. 1 among National Universities, ending Princeton University’s 15-year run at the top. But perhaps the bigger story for prospective students isn’t which university occupies the No. 1 position.

It’s a significant change in how U.S. News measures the value of attending college.

For the first time, the rankings include an Earnings by Major factor designed to examine what graduates earn after leaving school — and to compare those earnings with graduates who studied the same subjects elsewhere.

Is College Worth It? U.S. News Looks Beyond Graduation

College has traditionally been promoted as an investment in a person’s future. But as families confront tuition, housing expenses and the possibility of student debt, simply earning a degree may no longer be enough information when deciding where — or whether — to attend.

Students increasingly want to know what happens after graduation.

The new U.S. News Earnings by Major metric examines graduate earnings four years after graduation using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard.

Importantly, the system doesn’t simply compare the average salary of graduates from one university with another.

Instead, earnings are compared within specific academic disciplines.

That distinction matters.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

A university graduating large numbers of engineers, computer scientists or students entering other relatively high-paying occupations could otherwise appear to produce stronger financial outcomes simply because of the subjects its students choose to study.

Comparing graduates within similar fields is intended to provide a clearer picture of how graduates from different institutions fare financially.

From Student Debt to Graduate Earnings

The new Earnings by Major metric replaces the Graduate Indebtedness factor previously used by U.S. News.

That represents an important shift in perspective.

Instead of focusing primarily on how much debt students accumulate, the new measure looks at one aspect of what students may receive financially from their education after entering the workforce.

The metric examines employed federal financial aid recipients whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree.

According to U.S. News, the approach is intended to reduce the influence of family financial advantages and provide a better indication of the economic value institutions may contribute to graduates.

That doesn’t mean earnings alone determine whether a college education is worthwhile.

But for a student potentially investing tens of thousands of dollars — and several years of their life — knowing how graduates in a particular major perform economically can be an important part of the decision.

MIT Takes the No. 1 Spot

Against that changing methodology, MIT moved into the No. 1 position among National Universities in the 2027 rankings.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The top three are:

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  2. Princeton University
  3. Harvard University

Princeton’s move to second place ends a run at No. 1 that began with the 2012 edition of the rankings.

Among National Liberal Arts Colleges, Williams College remained No. 1, followed by Amherst College at No. 2. Bowdoin College, Claremont McKenna College, Pomona College and Swarthmore College tied for third.

Nearly 1,700 institutions were evaluated in the 2027 edition.

Outcomes Are Becoming a Bigger Part of the Equation

The addition of graduate earnings is part of a broader emphasis on student outcomes in the U.S. News methodology.

U.S. News says outcomes now account for more than half of a school’s total score.

Institutions can be evaluated using as many as 17 weighted measures, including graduation and retention rates, social mobility for lower-income students, post-graduate earnings, faculty resources and academic peer assessments.

The shift reflects a changing conversation surrounding higher education.

For generations, students were often encouraged to focus heavily on getting into the most prestigious college possible. Today’s students may also be asking more practical questions:

How much will it cost?

How much financial aid will I receive?

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

How much debt might I have when I graduate?

What do graduates in my intended major earn?

And perhaps most importantly:

Will the investment pay off for me?

College Value Isn’t Just About Salary

Graduate earnings can provide useful information, but salary shouldn’t be treated as the sole measurement of the value of higher education.

Different careers have dramatically different compensation structures.

A graduate pursuing teaching, public service, social work, the arts or nonprofit work may earn less than someone entering engineering, finance or technology while still considering their education worthwhile.

There are also benefits of higher education that are difficult to capture in a salary statistic.

That’s why students comparing schools may want to look beyond an institution’s overall ranking and examine factors such as net price after financial aid, scholarships, graduation rates, student debt, internship opportunities, career placement, location and the strength of the program they actually intend to study.

The best-known university isn’t automatically the best financial or educational choice for every student.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Economic Diversity Also Gets Attention

The 2027 rankings also highlight economic diversity among highly ranked institutions.

According to U.S. News, MIT and Princeton rank third and fourth, respectively, among the top 25 National Universities in the percentage of students receiving federal Pell Grants.

Pell Grants generally assist undergraduate students with significant financial need and typically do not have to be repaid.

Among the top 25 National Liberal Arts Colleges, Amherst College ranked highest for economic diversity under the U.S. News measure.

A New Ranking Looks at In-State Value

U.S. News is also placing additional attention on affordability for students considering public universities.

The 2027 edition introduces a Best Value Schools for In-State Students ranking, which evaluates public universities based on academic quality and affordability for residents.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took the No. 1 position in the inaugural ranking.

That category could be particularly relevant to families deciding whether the prestige associated with attending a private or out-of-state university justifies potentially higher costs compared with attending a public institution in their home state.

The Rankings Look Different This Year

There is another important caveat when comparing the 2027 results with previous years.

Changes to the Carnegie Classification framework resulted in approximately 20% of previously ranked institutions moving into different U.S. News categories.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Because some colleges are now being compared against different groups of institutions, their 2027 rankings may not be directly comparable with previous years.

The changes also expanded eligibility, allowing additional institutions specializing in areas such as engineering, business and health to enter the rankings.

U.S. News also introduced an undergraduate economics specialty ranking while continuing rankings covering areas such as social mobility, innovation, historically Black colleges and universities, artificial intelligence programs, internships, undergraduate research and study-abroad opportunities.

Public Universities, HBCUs and Social Mobility

Among public National Universities, the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA tied for the No. 1 position, followed by the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor.

The top three Historically Black Colleges and Universities were:

  1. Spelman College
  2. Howard University
  3. Tuskegee University

For social mobility among National Universities, Florida International University and the University of California, Riverside tied for No. 1, with Oakland City University ranked third.

These categories illustrate another reason students may want to look deeper than a school’s overall national position. Different rankings can reveal institutions performing particularly well in areas that may matter more to an individual student.

So, Is College Worth It?

There isn’t one answer that applies to every student.

The cost of attending, financial aid, chosen major, career goals, likelihood of graduating and potential debt can dramatically change the financial equation.

A college with a famous name and high national ranking could be a poor financial choice for one student while a less prominent public university with generous financial aid could be an excellent investment for another.

That’s what makes the addition of Earnings by Major noteworthy.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Instead of asking only “Which college ranks highest?”, prospective students now have another reason to ask a much more personal question:

“What am I paying for — and what could I realistically get in return?”

MIT replacing Princeton at No. 1 makes the headline.

But for students and parents trying to decide whether college is worth the cost, the growing emphasis on outcomes, affordability and post-graduation earnings may ultimately be the more important story.

Source: U.S. News & World Report, 2027 Best Colleges rankings, released September 22, 2026.

U.S. News & World Report press release:
MIT Claims No. 1 Spot in U.S. News 2027 Best Colleges Rankings PR Newswire

Stay Informed with STM Daily News

From education and personal finance to technology, lifestyle, transportation and the stories shaping our everyday lives, STM Daily News keeps you informed about what matters — and why it matters. Get more news, useful insights and the latest updates by visiting STM Daily News and subscribe to stay connected to the stories worth knowing.

Continue Reading

Forgotten Genius Fridays

Sarah Boone Improved the Ironing Board by Thinking About the Sleeve

Sarah Boone didn’t invent the first ironing board. The New Haven dressmaker patented a clever improvement shaped for pressing sleeves and fitted clothing.

Published

on

Forgotten Genius | STM Daily News

Try ironing a sleeve on a wide, flat board. The fabric bunches, the seams curve, and pressing one side can leave a crease on the other. For dressmaker Sarah Boone, that everyday frustration presented a problem she could solve.

Illustration of Sarah Boone’s narrow, curved ironing board design beside an 1892 patent drawing.
An artistic depiction of Sarah Boone examining her improved sleeve-ironing board in an 1890s dressmaking workshop. Warm window light illuminates the curved wooden board, fabric, and sewing tools, highlighting the practical ingenuity behind her 1892 patent. Image Credit: R Washington and Firefly

Working in New Haven, Connecticut, Boone designed an ironing board shaped for sleeves and fitted garments. Her board was narrow enough for a sleeve to slip over it, allowing one side to be pressed without flattening the other. Its curved edges followed the lines of a sleeve’s seams, while its supports helped position the board for different uses.

Boone filed her patent application in 1891. On April 26, 1892, she received U.S. Patent No. 473,653 for her improvement.

Boone did not invent the first ironing board. What she patented was a thoughtful redesign for a particular task. That distinction makes her achievement more interesting: she understood how the tool was used, recognized where it fell short, and changed its shape to make the work easier.

The patent drawing brings her idea to life. Instead of the broad surface most people picture when they hear “ironing board,” Boone’s design looks almost like the part of a garment it was meant to support. It is a practical solution from someone who knew the job firsthand.

That is the heart of Sarah Boone’s story. Invention does not always begin with an entirely new machine. Sometimes it begins when a person doing familiar work asks a better question: What would this tool look like if it truly fit the task?

Boone answered with a design—and secured a place in the history of Black innovation.

References:


faviconV2?client=SOCIAL&type=FAVICON&fallback opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.googleSarah Boone’s Original Ironing Board Patent
 — U.S. Patent No. 473,653, granted April 26, 1892. Includes her description, construction details, and original drawings.

faviconV2?client=SOCIAL&type=FAVICON&fallback opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usptoUSPTO: Beyond Baker’s List—Black Innovation Then and Now — Identifies Boone as a New Haven dressmaker who patented an improved ironing board shaped for bodices and sleeves.

faviconV2?client=SOCIAL&type=FAVICON&fallback opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usptoUSPTO: Found on Baker’s List — Background on Henry Baker’s work documenting Black patent holders, providing historical context for the Forgotten Genius series.

Explore more inventors and innovators in STM Daily News’ Forgotten Genius series.

Sources: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Sarah Boone’s original 1892 patent, available through Google Patents.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage
Continue Reading

unknown

Did Jackie Gleason See Aliens? Inside the Strange Nixon–UFO Legend

Jackie Gleason reportedly told his wife that President Richard Nixon arranged for him to view preserved extraterrestrial bodies at a Florida Air Force base. Here is what we know—and why the remarkable story remains unverified.

Published

on

The beloved comedian reportedly told his wife that President Richard Nixon arranged for him to view preserved extraterrestrial bodies at a Florida Air Force base. Decades later, the extraordinary story remains fascinating—but unverified.

Jackie Gleason and Richard Nixon portrayed against a mysterious nighttime military-base setting
Jackie Gleason’s alleged encounter with preserved alien bodies remains one of Hollywood’s strangest UFO legends.

Jackie Gleason is remembered as “The Great One,” the larger-than-life entertainer who turned bus driver Ralph Kramden into one of television’s most enduring characters on The Honeymooners. Away from the cameras, however, Gleason had another consuming interest: UFOs, psychic phenomena and the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

That interest eventually became the foundation of one of the strangest stories ever associated with an American president and a Hollywood celebrity. According to Gleason’s second wife, Beverly McKittrick, her husband came home late one night in 1973 and claimed that President Richard Nixon had helped him see the preserved bodies of extraterrestrial beings at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida.

Did Jackie Gleason really see aliens?

The honest answer is that we do not know. The allegation is remarkable, but the available evidence never rises above an uncorroborated story attributed to Gleason years after the supposed event.

Gleason’s fascination with UFOs was real

There is little question that Gleason took the UFO subject seriously. He reportedly assembled a substantial personal library devoted to UFOs, the paranormal and related mysteries. His unusual circular home in New York—often nicknamed “The Mothership”—only strengthened his public association with flying saucers, although its distinctive architecture is not evidence of an extraterrestrial encounter.

Gleason also had a genuine social connection with Nixon. The two men shared an interest in golf and spent time together in Florida. That documented friendship is the factual starting point from which the more sensational story grew.

The alleged trip to Homestead Air Force Base

McKittrick said that Gleason returned to their Florida home at about 11:30 one evening looking disturbed. According to her account, he told her that Nixon had arrived without the usual presidential entourage and taken him to Homestead Air Force Base, south of Miami.

Once there, Gleason allegedly entered a secured building where he saw small humanoid bodies preserved inside glass-topped containers. Published versions differ over the number of bodies and some physical details, but they generally describe child-sized beings with oversized heads.

Importantly, McKittrick did not claim to have accompanied the men or witnessed anything at the base. Her account was based entirely on what she said Gleason told her after returning home.

The story became public in 1983, years after the alleged visit and after the couple had divorced. It circulated widely through tabloid reporting, UFO publications and later books, gradually becoming part of UFO folklore.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Why the story remains unverified

No authenticated photograph, visitor record, military document or firsthand statement from Nixon has emerged to confirm the alleged trip. Gleason also never provided investigators with a signed affidavit describing the experience.

UFO researcher Larry Bryant reportedly sought records from Homestead and tried to obtain a statement from Gleason, but those efforts produced no confirming documentation. Gleason’s refusal to address the account publicly has sometimes been portrayed as suspicious, but silence is not proof that an event occurred.

There is another important complication: McKittrick later expressed uncertainty about her former husband’s story.

During telephone interviews conducted by researcher Kenny Young in 2003, she stood by her recollection that Gleason told her he had seen “dead aliens.” She also acknowledged that, as the years passed, she wondered whether he might have invented the explanation because he had been out late. She declined to appear on camera and said the story should be authenticated first.

Her later comments do not establish that the account was false, but they considerably weaken any attempt to treat it as verified history.

Could a president have slipped away unnoticed?

Some versions of the legend emphasize that Nixon supposedly drove to Gleason’s house alone and then entered a military installation without his Secret Service detail. Presidents have occasionally sought privacy or slipped away from tightly managed schedules, but a secret nighttime excursion of this nature would have involved serious security and logistical obstacles.

The claim becomes even more difficult to accept when we consider what Nixon allegedly revealed. If the United States possessed extraterrestrial bodies, granting a comedian personal access to them would have represented an extraordinary breach of national security—with no apparent official purpose and no surviving documentation.

None of that makes the episode logically impossible. It does, however, mean that the story requires exceptionally strong evidence. That evidence has never appeared.

A compelling legend, not a confirmed encounter

The Jackie Gleason story endures because it combines three irresistible ingredients: a famous comedian fascinated by UFOs, a secretive American president and a nighttime visit to a military base containing an alleged government secret.

What can be established is that Gleason was deeply interested in UFOs, knew Nixon and was said by his former wife to have made an extraordinary claim. What cannot be established is that Nixon took him to Homestead Air Force Base or that preserved extraterrestrial bodies were ever stored there.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

So, did Jackie Gleason see aliens?

Perhaps he believed that he did—or perhaps he simply told an unforgettable story. Until corroborating evidence emerges, the alleged encounter belongs in the intriguing borderland between celebrity history and American UFO mythology.

Sources and further reading

Step into The Unknown, where STM Daily News explores the strange phenomena, unexplained encounters and enduring mysteries that continue to challenge what we think we know. From UFO sightings and paranormal events to historical mysteries and unusual scientific discoveries, we examine the stories, evidence and competing explanations—without losing our sense of wonder. https://stmdailynews.com/science/unknown/

Continue Reading

Trending