Core Insights - The forum held by the Asia Clean Air Center in Beijing focused on the theme of "Continuous Improvement of Air Quality: Standards Leading, Health Driven" and presented the latest research findings on environmental air quality standards in collaboration with Tsinghua University and Peking University [1] Group 1: Air Quality Standards Revision - The current air quality standards (GB3095-2012) were revised in 2012 and fully implemented in 2016, with a revision process initiated in 2022 [1] - The State Council's "Action Plan for Continuous Improvement of Air Quality" released in November 2023 emphasizes the need to start revising air quality standards and related technical specifications [1] - The demand for revising and raising standards has become clear, especially since the national average PM2.5 concentration has met standards for five consecutive years since 2020 [3] Group 2: Health and Economic Impact - The report "Economic Impact Assessment of China's Air Quality Standards Revision" utilized a computable general equilibrium model to evaluate the macroeconomic impacts and cost-benefit analysis of four standard revision scenarios [7] - Stricter air quality standards may impose short-term economic pressures due to increased pollution reduction expenditures, but they can also drive industrial structure optimization and energy transition [7][8] - The cost-benefit analysis indicates that implementing stricter standards earlier yields greater net benefits, particularly in the medium to long term as health benefits accumulate [8] Group 3: International Practices and Comparisons - The report includes a comparative analysis of international practices in air quality standards revision, particularly focusing on the United States and the European Union [10] - The U.S. follows a highly institutionalized standard review mechanism, assessing air quality standards every five years based on the latest scientific evidence, while the EU's revisions are driven by macro strategies and international consensus [11] - The analysis highlights the differences in the assessment frameworks, with the U.S. emphasizing health impacts and the EU focusing on multi-objective balance, including environmental equity [11]