The Clean Air Act, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has given us so much; catalytic converters, smog reduction in Los Angeles, factory scrubbers that reduce smokestack pollution and now, 5 more months.

According to the findings of researchers from Brigham Young University and Harvard School of Public Health, based on 20 years of data and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, cleaner air in the U.S. has resulted in an almost 5 month increase in life expectancy on average.  

This is because airborne pollution, including soot, grit and chemicals, are known causes of cancer, stroke and heart attacks. Less air pollution means less instances of these particular diseases, means longer life expectancy, as well as savings on health care costs. It is worth noting that the Centers for Disease Control helped to fund the study.

Some experts not connected with the study called the gain dramatic.

"It shows that our efforts as a country to control air pollution have been well worth the expense," said Dr. Joel Kaufman, a University of Washington expert on environmental health. - MSNBC

The results of this study, plus EPA data showing that air particulate levels have fallen 11% since 2000, demonstrate the importance of regulation. It also reinforces the argument that the EPA can and should use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that the cost of doing so is "worth it".

The first clean air act in the United States, called the Air Pollution Control Act, was passed in 1955, followed by the Clean Air Act of 1963. It was the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970, however, that empowered the EPA to create and enforce national regulations to protect the public from exposure to airborne contaminants.

In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended again to address ozone depletion and acid rain, which it did successfully. And in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA must regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act or provide a reasonable argument explaining why such regulation was outside of its jurisdiction. 

With a change in administration, environmentalists are now hopeful that the EPA will utilize every possible tool to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and expand on the success of the Clean Air Act. The Obama administration has promised to address climate change and the likely incoming EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, signaled during her confirmation hearings that she would do so stating that environmental laws "were meant to address not only the issues of today, but the issues of tomorrow." And Jackson went further:

Jackson said her early priorities would include reevaluating California's request for a waiver to set tougher tailpipe CO2 emission standards and following the Supreme Court's directives from the Massachusetts v. EPA climate-change decision.

...

On climate change, Jackson said she would have the EPA declare whether greenhouse gases pose a danger to humankind and need to be regulated -- an action mandated by the Supreme Court, but put off by the Bush administration. "When that finding happens, when EPA makes a decision on endangerment, let me put it that way, it will indeed trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country," she said. - Grist

Related Reading:
How Cali Leads the US in Environmental Protection
Why the EPA Sucks