Yeah, I'm lumping them together because that's the way they're talked about in the media and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know off the top of my head what th

Yeah, I'm lumping them together because that's the way they're talked about in the media and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know off the top of my head what the exact distribution of which pollutant is. And I'm almost certain that if the debate were rational, there'd be some way to find out which pollution is the most harmful/least expensive to avoid, and thus come up with rational prioritization in policy. That's why this whole pseudo-pastoral "just-hard-working-folk" shtick combined with fake surprise and outrage is so damaging: nobody is arguing for abolishing agriculture; everybody knows it's simply necessary - oh, and lucrative. But policy on this hot-button issue isn't even remotely based on science; it's based on politics, which in turn is based on whatever riles people up - so farmers are trying to portray this as some kind of evil bureacrats vs. the earth of the land, and nobody is talking about (at least not with any popular reach) why this is even a problem, what to do about it, etc etc etc.