President-elect Joe Biden opposes proposals to allow uranium mining around the Grand Canyon, which the Trump administration supports.
Michael Quinn, NPS/Flickr
The Trump administration has used executive orders, deregulation and delays to reduce environmental regulation. Biden administration officials will use many of the same tools to undo their work.
Secondhand smoke may come from many miles away.
According to a new study, about four in 10 air pollution deaths in the US are due to emissions crossing state lines.
President George H.W. Bush (right) fishing on the Kennebunk River in Maine, Aug. 27, 1990.
AP Photo/Doug Mills
George H.W. Bush, who pledged to be 'the environmental president,' took a market-based approach to pollution control that helped clear the air. Now some experts think it could work on climate change.
Industrial facilities like this oil refinery in Anacortes, Washington are significant air pollution sources.
An air pollution expert with years of experience advising federal regulators describes how the Trump administration is speeding up reviews and reducing scientific input.
A study finds that higher ozone levels correlate with slower performance times for college endurance athletes.
US ozone pollution has fallen in recent decades, but exposure to low levels of ozone still has serious effects on human health and well-being.
President Trump is challenging the US states’ right to set their own emissions targets.
Photo by John-Mark Smith on Unsplash
It's time Australian states took a lesson from US states when it comes to working around obstructive federal climate change policies.
A barn that can hold up to 4,800 hogs outside Berwick, Pa. The state says the farm is in compliance with regulations, but residents have gone to court seeking relief from odors.
AP Photo/Michael Rubinkam
Many people who live near large-scale livestock farms complain about noxious smells, air and water pollution and health risks. With little help from regulators, they are turning to lawsuits.
Tighter emissions standards create costs for truck manufacturers yet provide health benefits for society. How should they be weighed?
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has proposed steps that would reduce economic benefits to society from new regulations. An economist who worked for Presidents Clinton and Obama calls this a strategy to justify deregulation.
Smog alert in Cleveland, Ohio, July 20, 1973.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to change the grounds for setting US air pollution targets. An environmental lawyer explains why Pruitt's approach misreads the law and could roll back decades of gains.
Rush hour on the Hollywood Freeway, Los Angeles, September 9, 2016.
AP Photo/Richard Vogel
Air pollution could be the next battleground between California and the Trump administration, which is reviewing the Golden State's special legal authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.
Because of Hurricane Harvey, refineries and other facilities released 2,000 tons of pollutants.
AP Photo/LM Otero
An analysis of air pollutants from Texas shows how significant – and largely underregulated – the category of 'excess' emissions is across the US.
Coal stockpile at a Milwaukee, Wisconsin power plant, 2011.
A recent study shows that large piles of coal produce measurable quantities of fine particulate air pollution within a 25-mile radius. Covering coal trains and storage piles could reduce the problem.
President Trump has ordered federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one they enact – ignoring the fact that many regulations produce large social benefits.
Will the evidence finally convince polluted cities to clean up their act?
US President Barack Obama has unveiled the United States’ most comprehensive climate policy so far.
US President Barack Obama's new climate plan aims to cut greenhouse emissions from the nation's coal-dominated power sector by 32% by 2030. Will it get through, and how will it affect this year's climate talks?
The EPA seemed to think the benefits so outweighed the costs that the latter weren’t worth considering.
Cost benefit via www.shutterstock.com
Regulations that do significantly more harm than good are never appropriate, as the court concluded.