'pollution' is vague and politically charged. The article observes that Nitrogen Oxides reduce crop yields, whereas some "pollution" (e.g. volcanic ash) can increase crop yields.
If I ever needed to know how tribal our society has become, here it is. Pollution now has a varying definition depending on if you are left or right. Jesus.
At what point of history have humans not been tribal?
How can you assert common definitions when Leftists wholly embraces relativism, where you can deny objective facts and substitute your feelings as facts, and use those feelings as justification for literally anything?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
shiny and chrome!
That said, this is a definition problem… which used to be agreed upon lol. The issue is one political party is trying to use the term “pollution” to enact policy changes; so it becomes political and definitions change, etc in a fight for power.
It's also very commonly agreed which ones are the concerning ones in day to day life - the WHO (first result on Google for me when I google 'air pollution') lists exactly the ones I think of when I hear the term: "Pollutants of major public health concern include particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide." (Although I think it's better to use "Nitrogen oxides" or NOx instead of just saying nitrogen dioxide).
Even plants, apparently.
/s