?
The evidence keeps piling up and it's pointing in the same direction.
Future global mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate change
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3354.html
Unfortunately, access to the full article requires a subsciption, so we'll have to make due with the introduction which mentions the results from multiple combined models, and adds a warning for the use of only a single model.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here are some more/earlier studies that are fully available (PDF links available on the pages):
Global premature mortality due to anthropogenic outdoor air pollution and the contribution of past climate change
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Global-premature-mortality-due-to-anthropogenic-ou-Malina-Ashok/38f2d10d0240db005c32362728fe2fdf98f2b642
Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio- respiratory mortality: a review
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Long-term-air-pollution-exposure-and-cardio-respir-Hoek-Krishnan/0261a649fc5d5701ead7224f2173605544b078f6
Air Pollution and Climate Change Effects on Allergies in the Anthropocene: Abundance, Interaction, and Modification of Allergens and Adjuvants
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Air-Pollution-and-Climate-Change-Effects-on-Allerg-Reinmuth-Selzle-Kampf/a86eafae39628a465195d6755333a9eef58af179
Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Estimates-and-25-year-trends-of-the-global-burden-Cohen-Brauer/494bdf3d12a1216589565feb346ee4d998cf41d5
The Economics of Health Damage and Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe: A Review of the Conventional and Grey Literature
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Economics-of-Health-Damage-and-Adaptation-to-C-Martinez-Pezzoli/c703db9980fb76962d5d44dd9f7d877724a15940
Bart,
I've not met anyone who disputes that air pollution, from whatever source, can be harmful to human health. We all know that.
Countries which are struggling to industrialize and raise themselves out of poverty are faced with the choice of harnessing either a small amount of 'clean' but expensive energy, or a larger amount of cheaper energy without adequate emission controls. The harmful effects of hunger, disease and poverty are understandably considered to be greater than the harmful effects of air pollution from cheaply built vehicles and power plants.
As countries develop, as a result of plentiful supplies of cheap but polluting energy, and succeed in reducing the basic poverty of the population, as China has done, then such countries will tend to tackle the problem of inadequate emission controls, as China is now doing, and as most developed countries in the West have already done by regulating emissions of harmful pollutants from vehicles and power plants.
Now one can argue that such emission controls in developed countries are still not adequate. As the wealth and prosperity of a population increases, health standards tend to rise, but sometimes to excessive degrees whereby some people become so obsessed with cleanliness that they clean the house every day, wash their hands 20 times a day, and protect their children from contact with anything perceived as the slightest bit 'dirty', thus creating future problems for their children whose immune system tends not to develop properly.
Some people are so obsessed with cleanliness that they actually seem to believe that the clear, clean and odourless gas called CO2, which is essential for all life, is a pollutant. Can you imagine anything so absurd? 
This gets to the nub of the problem; the conflation of different issues with different solutions into one problem with one solution.
For example, it's well established that increases in CO2 levels increase the growth of most crops, plants and forests, thus helping to 'green' the planet and provide greater food security for an expanding population. This fact can be established in real time, experimentally, in completely controlled conditions such as a greenhouse, and in less controlled conditions outside of a greenhouse, by wafting CO2 over plants, known as Free Air CO2 Enrichment or FACE.
How do the alarmists counter such evidence for the benefits of CO2? They conflate negative results relating to separate issues, which exist regardless of CO2 levels, and pretend that reducing CO2 levels is a sensible solution.
Those who have some knowledge of modern farming practices and/or who have explored methods of growing their own vegetables in their back garden, or who are just sensibly concerned about the nutritional value of the food they eat, will probably understand and appreciate that there are negative consequences of modern agricultural practices.
The goal of modern agriculture is to grow and harvest crops in the most efficient manner at the most competitive price. If there's little or no Selenium in the soil, for example, that situation will not affect the growth of the plants, but it will ensure that the plants grown will contain very little Selenium, which is essential for good health.
The trend in modern agriculture results in carbon-depleted, poor quality soil which is continually enriched with the type of artificial fertilizers which ensure maximum growth, together with the application of pesticides to assist in maximum yield and good appearance. Both farmers and the consumers tend to be more concerned with the appearance of the fruit and vegetables, than the nutritional value.
There are a number of studies which suggest that the fruit and vegetables our great grandfathers ate were more nutritious than the food we eat today. An orange grown 150 years ago, in naturally fertile and carbon-rich soil, contained more Vitamin C than most oranges grown today.
The solution is to change our agricultural practices, or at least add the numerous minerals to the soil which don't enhance growth but do ensure the food is more nutritious.
The argument from the alarmists that CO2 increases have negative effects on plant nutrition because the uptake of certain minerals is not proportional to the increase in biomass growth, is something to take note of, but to imply that this could be another reason for reducing CO2 levels is absurd.
Whether the increased growth is due to the application of nitrogen fertilizers or elevated levels of CO2,
it would be very dumb to argue in favour of reducing the application of growth-enhancing fertilizers in order to get half the amount of crop growth, especially when reducing CO2 levels costs money. A much, much better idea would be to add to the soil the minerals which are deficient, and improve the general health of the soil. The uptake of nutrients by plants is also dependent upon microbial activity in the soil, the presence of worms and other soil organisms.
http://www.fao.org/soils-2015/news/news-detail/en/c/277682/In summary, we should exploit the advantageous benefits of increased CO2 levels. They're a wonderful gift.
