It is my contention that claims originating from a summary of research published by the Pembina Institute regarding a connection between positive health benefits from phasing-out coal will prove mostly unverifiable at best as coal-fired plants are phased-out: "an accelerated phase-out would bring nation-wide health, climate and economic benefits."
Even if every province were to install sensitive air monitoring equipment in some grid fashion at fifty kilometer intervals, and collate the nature of each and every hospital visit according to proximal relationships, finding a direct correlation between burning coal and ill-health would still likely prove difficult in my opinion. The way I see it, in a nutshell, such an approach is not unlike telling someone who has spent twenty years of their life working around dry-cleaning chemicals that their breathing difficulty is solely the result of their cigarette smoking habit.
While it's been no secret for many years that coal related pollution is problematic in many ways, to nobly vilify emissions as having a direct impact upon the general health of a given population is somewhat ridiculous within the context of an industrialized world filled with all manner of perilously harmful toxins.
Albeit that my position was formed prior to even reading the material, my general suspicions were at least partly confirmed by the disclaimers found in the appendices of the report. Though the contributors admit their estimates surrounding perceived health benefits are conservative, they also point-out that the data used to arrive at their premise borders upon being hair-brained. From the report:
The correlation between air contaminants and health impact may not be as linear as this analysis suggests.
As an academic nobody it is not my intent here to even attempt to properly refute the researchers' scientific methodology, but to encourage a more balanced and less politically motivated analysis of the relationship between particulate emissions and overall health. I say either narrow down a direct relationship, or abandon it altogether before championing inconclusive findings as an argument to speed-up the dismantling of livelihoods and prosperity.
Would not a tripling in the cost of residential electricity bills as a result of abandoning coal-fired power ultimately do more indirect harm to the average person's health than even living close to and downwind from a steady stream of particulate matter? In other words, it's hard to maintain good health if one is perpetually stressed-out about an electric bill biting into a basic food budget.
Would it not make more holistic and economic sense to vigorously pursue improved methods of efficiency relating to a proven, reliable, and affordable method of generating power that is already in place?
