||26 THE THIRTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REYNOLDS LECTURE elected the air-quality standards route as the best available. It may well have been the best available. But, as we learn more about the true costs and damages of air pollution, we will certainly want to go over to a more refined and cost-effective scheme for setting air pollution rules. This does not mean that we will have to consider only bodily damage and plant damage. I, for one, consider the clear air of the Southwest deserts something of value. When you stand on top of Boulder Mountain in Southern Utah and look across the deserts to Navajo Mountain 80 miles away, you can see it as clearly as if it were at arm's reach. I consider that a great national treasure. I do not think it should be thrown away. But, to save it we will have to decide that it has a value, and agree that we are willing to forego other values to keep it. Considering the future of air pollution control in the U.S.A., I do not think that the time of controversy is over. It may barely have begun. In the past, we have considered the air as a free receptacle for pretty much whatever anyone wanted to put into it. In the future, we will have to regulate fairly closely what people put into the air. That will require a considerable shift in our values and will require economic changes measured in billions of dollars. I believe that the net effect will be an economic gain, because the decreased damages will more than offset the increased costs. But, it will mean significant changes in who pays what. When such changes occur, and billions of dollars are involved, then there will be controversy and much of it will occur in the political arena. I do not think that those who value clean air can relax and assume that some automatic process in government will do the job. Those who value clean air must continue to pressure the government, to help offset the pressures exerted by those who place other values higher. I titled this talk "Let's Clear the Air," an intentionally optimistic title. In the past few years the terms of the air pollution debate have changed from "... shall we ever? ..." to "... how soon and how well? ..." The most diehard opponents of pollution control now have given up hope that we will abandon the task, and are fighting rear-guard actions rather than intending to hold out forever against the drive for cleaner air. There is much to do, and it will not be done quickly. We have made mistakes and will make more. Many of our current approaches will turn out to have been temporary expedients, to be replaced in the future by better approaches. But we will clear the air.