Well,
Let's just say that the Jaguar! (a certain ride in Knott's) could instantly go from zero speed to, let's say, 40 mph, and vice versa. We know (if you have ridden it) that the Jaguar! is not a straight line, as you can't say that it is always traveling at 40 mph due north (otherwise it would never be able to make a loop)!
Remember that, since velocity is a vector quantity, a change in direction will constitute a change in velocity.
The pressure to loosen clean air standards is based in allegations that the standards affect industry development and economy because the adjustments require further modernization and some industry even need to change their whole machinery or line production to be able to meet the legal requirements, as for the car industry, slowing down production or increasing costs.
In short-term that is very likely to be true, the industry will have to do some investment, but the price will be lower than the long-term cost of keeping up polluting the air.
The clean air standards should not be loosen because loosen the standards will benefits only specific groups and temporary, later and in other domains the loosen of the standards will affects human and other animals quality of life and environment. The economic impact will be seen later on healthy sector, food sector as agriculture and livestock, in nature disaster and in the lack of natural resources due to dramatic landscape changes.
We should not think about just economic impact of now when taking this decisions but we should consider systematic risks and consequences of supporting the loosen of clean air standards.
We must keep in mind that some process in nature are irreversible and when one action as the pollution of air is impacting towards things we will not be able to revert anymore the cost will be much higher in future than is now to adapt to the clean standards.
There are a few ways that this can be done. I will list the ones I know off the top of my head, as this is a broad question. I will be describing this as if the reader is a political scientist so don't take it personally, it's just so you can better understand.
Cherry Picking: Say you want to get a poll. Don't go to an area where there is a majority of the working class. You wan't to go to areas that are high on welfare, stock brokers, corporate etc. You can best find these in big cities like New York, Orlando, so on. That way, when people see the polls, they will look at what are demographic is, giving them the sense that we are popular party.
Fabrication: Don't worry about the legitimacy. Most people just want some sort of facts or explanation, and if we make one up that it is believable for most people, we are good. So long as they don't look at the actual ice caps and the temperature around the world, as far as they know Global Warming is a thing, *cough* I mean, sorry not Global Warming, Climate Change, it's totally different *wink, wink*.
Censorship: So long as no one sees any contradicting evidence to our polls, they are good. Same thing with Climate Change. If however something does come up we need to treat is as if it is absurd. Conspiracy theorist! But even then we need to make sure that it stays away from public eye, and public opinion.
Hope this helps, don't want to keep you waiting much longer.
