I see what you're getting at but I still disagree, for a couple of reasons. First, the sentence itself doesn't strike me as lending itself to the idea that "th

I see what you're getting at but I still disagree, for a couple of reasons. First, the sentence itself doesn't strike me as lending itself to the idea that "the point they're making is that no other country would have as much of an effect on air quality by shutting down nuclear power at the national policy level". If the author wants to portray this point, why don't they actually say so in the article, instead of indirectly alluding to it? The sentence in question strikes me more as an exaggerated fun fact to grab the reader's attention and make them gasp, than as a way to set the context of the situation. Second, the nuclear reactors are shutting down due to rate-setting policy issues on the *state* level, not the at the federal policy level. So it becomes again a disingenuous comparison, because each state can take their own individual course of action to prevent shutdown (or not). The "US" as a whole, that is to say the federal govt, is likely powerless in this situation unless they can get a bipartisan bill passed which is unlikely. Even if passed it's just kicking the can until the rates issues are fixed.