Dubious claims, In My Bombastic Opinion
Although gross air pollution was "a thing" back in the 60's and 70's in the USA (and STILL is in places like China), I am doubtful of the claims on health.
The biggest health risks from burning fossil fuels are particulates, hydrocarbons, and acid rain components.
It is my understanding that they are generally taken care of through scrubber technology. ff not, they SHOULD be.
But I do not believe that any of this is a problem inside the USA in the 21st century. So I would like very much if they could make more specific claims, such as "air particulates containing carbon and carbon compounds were shown at levels above XX and therefore result in YY health concerns". But what seems clear to me is that there are generalities and a possible logical fallacy of "everybody knows" or ":everybody believes" as if thick black smoke were belching from the exhaust stacks of every power plant which it is not, at least not in the USA].
Now the article discusses "historic data' for particulates, ozone, and acidic stuff, but then goes into the RIDICULOUS claim about CO2 [keep in mind that CO2 levels are 0.04% and do not become serious health concern until they go above 2% - ask any submariner]. So I would be interested in what the particulate, ozone, and acid levels are as compared to, let;s say, a FOREST FIRE, something we regularly extinguish as responsible humans.
I am also a bit concerned about how RECENT the 'historic data' is. I suspect that acidic, particulate, AND ozone in power plant exhaust are not nearly what might be indicated by that data, as technology has improved with respect to cleaning up the exhaust from burning fossil fuels. Example, adding scrubbers to existing coal plant exhaust stacks.
A web site with a list of retrofitted power plants with scrubbers added
It is my understanding that in many cases the chemicals recovered from the exhaust might actually be usable and can offset the cost of the scrubber.
Point is, wouldn't it just be SMARTER to CLEAN UP the exhaust, instead of turning them OFF? Then monitor air quality reasonably and make investments in retrofits where it makes the most sense.
US EPA info on power plant exhaust
I am curious, why ozone was mentioned... I cannot find any references to it in stack exhaust. Unless it is a reaction from breakdown of NO2 or some other similar reaction (combustion itself would NEVER produce it) then I am not sure why it was even mentioned IN THE ARTICLE. Hey maybe someone knows why but it is not helping their credibility if it is wrong. But any SO2 scrubber should remove NO2 as well.
[If they are really referring to ozone depletion, then that might make sense - hot exhaust is hot enough to get to the ozone layer - volcanoes do that all of the time they erupt]