This assumption seems to be at the center of his argument (about the fireplace, not the analogy-part). However, in my modern apartment here in Norway it is regularly so cold that I am unable to heat it properly without using my wood-burning stove. So it is not recreational.
With regards to environmental impact, Norway is no stranger to legislation and have mandated that all new stoves are catalytic [1] since 1998. I am not sure how this impacts the findings referenced in the article, but I am sure that this is one of the possible things to consider other than "ban everything" or "legislate nothing".
In conclusion: Of course smoke is bad for you. Bad air quality is a big problem in winter in my town. But I need the heat!
[1]: Or "clean burn". Unsure about the English nomenclature here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood-burning_stove#Catalytic_an...