An article in the New York Times (17 Nov, 2011) describes the Federal govt’s decision to retreat from the EPA recommended standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb), a revision of the current 84 ppb rule.  Resistance from manufacturers was based on cost of compliance, estimated by them at $90 billion. State governers worried that regions out of compliance now would create large costs for new plants and existing plants as they tried to comply, thus making them less competitive to firms, and impacting jobs. But are tighter standards that improve the environment and decrease health costs, always bad for manufacturers? How should one estimate the jobs not gnenerated because of poorer air quality? Is retention of manufacturing with poorer environmental standards a competive long run strategy for US manufacturers?