Only if you are weighing all the various possible combustion products more or less in the literal sense of weighing(even there there can be some discrepancies based on how much of a given combustion product is contributed by the atmosphere rather than the fuel).
If you are weighting the emissions by unpleasantness the two can differ substantially. That’s much of diesel’s problem: mileage is pretty good; but NOx and(particularly in the larger ones) particulate gets pretty unpleasant.
Exactly the kind of thing that came to my mind. Why haven’t any of the banksters and other financier -types that imploded the economy in 2008 gone to jail? They woulda in the early 1900s, even in the USA.
Yes, phys.org has played similarly fast and loose with the epidemiological terms.
Contributory is not causal. Please, schooling. Not even disappointed, because I am not even surprised. The NOx does not cause those deaths, it leads to them. This is why we have all these different words, so we can use nuance when our emotional state allows us to.
I agree that it may not be the most precise of terms, but their were people that died earlier than otherwise would have died because of those emissions.
Some online definitions could agree with the use by Cory, if those emission were a contributing cause of the premature deaths.