I get the point of this article, but I really dislike the presentation. Nothing about the Clean Air Act’s policies or other steps toward improvements have been “reversed.” It’s just that large fires have caused worsening air quality. These are two entirely separate items that both happen to impact the same thing.
If we had not been taking those other actions to reduce pollutants, the air quality would likely be even worse when the fires were added in. I’d love to see a slightly modified presentation, something like, “Fires raised pollutants by X amount. If it weren’t for the Clean Air Act, the pollution level probably would have reached X+Y! But thankfully we took steps to reduce it before/during the fires.”
To use the term “reversed” feels like it’s trying to minimize the impact of the progress that we have made. And that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It also sounds like the perfect, illogical excuse to stop trying. Nonsense.