Surely something that emitted pure greenhouse gases, no large particles or soot but disastrous for the climate would be pollution, by definition? I'm thinking

Surely something that emitted pure greenhouse gases, no large particles or soot but disastrous for the climate would be pollution, by definition? I'm thinking that better for the climate (wood pellets) but worse for (what GP defines as) pollution is a trade off, and probably people are going to argue about that balance, but at the end of the day if we pollute the planet today and just hope our grandchildren will be able to fix the problem or suffer the consequences then that is pretty poor.