Hopefully this will impact policy in other areas. For example, since the 1990s, California has had the luxury of 'defining air pollution down.' The standard for what constituted pollution got more Puritanical as the air got cleaner, despite any evidence anyone was being helped. With real smog gone in all but one location, California Air Resources Board gave itself a reason to continue to exist by pivoting from smog, PM10, down to virtual pollution, PM2.5 - particulate matter so small you need an electron microscope to see it - and claimed that was killing people.
Using a standard for air quality even nature exceeds routinely, maps could still be yellow or red and activist politicians could talk about how terrible cars and manufacturing jobs are. That is not science and never was, and it is shown in the one place that still needed improvement after California's arbitrary (and allowed under federal law thanks to a special political exemption by EPA) was Los Angeles. That is due to nature.
Given its geology, the only thing that is going to improve air quality in that basin is people leaving. Which is not going to happen unless Colorado stops sending its water. Yet no one was going to mention scientific reality so instead they found epidemiologists who can correlate anything to anything - if you replace data with statistics, science need not be on the agenda.
Actual smog on our continent, not the virtual kind - PM2.5
To create policy you only need correlation, and epidemiologists who believe their link it real and that biologists or chemists or toxicologists are lagging and simply have not discovered how the cause and effect is occurring.
Disregarding science reality, California politicians armed with epidemiological correlation still demanded that poor people be penalized with costly emissions standards that made cars even more expensive because it increased the cost for new ones while used cars in nearly 40 other states couldn't be sold in their borders.
Yet again, higher costs for Californians made no difference in the only place where it needed to make a difference - LA. It turns out that Los Angeles remains ill-suited to have as many people as it has and the ozone everyone said needed to be gone in the 1980s is still there.
It's due to nature as much as anything. California has heat waves and banning cans of hair spray dldn't stop that.
In all, this year there were 157 bad air days for ozone pollution — the invisible, lung-searing gas in smog — across the vast, coast-to-mountains basin ... That’s the most days above the federal health standard since 1997.How is that possible with the city shut down and far fewer cars on streets?