Final answer:
False, The Clean Air Act does not severely limit the use of benefit-cost analysis; the EPA regularly conducts such analysis, and it has shown that the benefits of the Act far outweigh the costs.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the Clean Air Act severely limits the use of benefit-cost analysis in setting air quality standards is false.
The Act, last amended in 1990, does not explicitly prevent the use of benefit-cost analysis; rather, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants harmful to public health and the environment, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, as well as public welfare protection including visibility and damage to various environmental facets.
While it is true that the Clean Air Act focuses on protecting health and the environment without explicitly mandating benefit-cost analysis, the EPA has regularly carried out such analysis to evaluate the impact of the Act.
Studies have shown that the environmental benefits, including reduced illness and premature death, have significantly outweighed the costs associated with implementing the Clean Air Act's regulations. For instance, between 1970 and 1990, the Act's benefits were estimated to be about 44 times higher than the costs, and more recent evaluations continue to show a positive ratio of benefits to costs.