LA is definitely not geographically advantaged when it comes to pollution, given it is a big basin. I'm not sure who wins the geographically disadvantaged olympics, but SLC and LA are more alike than not in this department.
Utah could adopt CARB's stricter air quality standards for one. They could also shutdown or limit pollution sources, including those from home heating. And they could reduce the growing sprawl by encouraging density and public transportation. I'm not a regulatory expert so I can't give you more specifics than that, but it's not like these things aren't possible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board
So, Utah has already effectively adopted CARB standards, and the rest of your suggestions fit in the same category -- I don't see them making a difference, or being feasible.
[1] https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/los-angeles [2] https://www.iqair.com/usa/utah/salt-lake-city
(On an unrelated note, I like your site -- mine is less populated, but is also a love letter to a less complicated Web.) :)
Ya LA is still struggling mightily, especially inland. SLC metro area is a tenth of LA (1.2mm vs 13mm) and growing faster, so these forces may even out. Geographic destiny is hard to overcome.
(Thanks! I wish we could go back to those simpler times) :)
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/climate/zero-emissions-tr...
Practically speaking... what would you expect that they do about it?
As a California native, I've seen just how bad short-sighted environmental regulation can be. And it's not like pollution isn't an issue in Los Angeles or the Central Valley, both of which enjoy a strong geographic advantage compared to SLC.
So, what sort of regulation could the state pass that would mitigate the problem? Given the geographical and economic constraints.