A climate change denier, citing the success of government regulations that limit emission of environmentally harmful substance, without noticeable harm on economy, must not be really thinking it through...
This is purely an ad hominem argument because I don't have time to dig into their claims: isn't in the EPA's interest to claim that their regulations are worth the cost?
The clean air act isn't an EPA regulation. It was created by an act of congress, and part of that law requires the EPA to file regular reports on whether or not the law is working.
Drinkable and breathable at all? Sure, since without water and air we die.
But what about tradeoffs? What if we can leave air polluted enough that two hundred years of breathing it would be fatal, and spend that money elsewhere? Would that tradeoff be worth it? No-one ever lives to be 200 anyway.
What about a century? Almost no-one lives to be 100.
At what point is the tradeoff no longer worth it?
And, to return to your statement (which I earlier conceded): drinkable water & breathable air can't be worth any cost, because if they cost my life then I can't enjoy them anyway.
Given that resources are fungible, and that money spent preventing acid rain could instead feed the hungry: how many people are you willing to kill in order to preserve buildings from corrosive rain?
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents...