Not really. Pollution is uniformly unwanted by definition (without you changing the goalposts to CO2, which is naturally occurring, and the naturally occurring CO2 would not be considered as pollution, whereas human created CO2 would). In fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition:
"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."
Outrage, on the other hand, may be very much wanted, or even required. I'm not defending ALL outrage. I'm defending that some outrage may occasionally be warranted. You saw an all or nothing fallacy where there was none. To recap -
Argument: Outrage is cultural pollution.
My Response: All pollution is unwanted, some outrage may be occasionally wanted or warranted.
Your response: Saying pollution has no value is an all-or-nothing fallacy!
The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy. Because the person making that claim should know better.