See, this is precisely why we shouldn't have non-scientists (or non-technologists) involved in deciding environmental policy.
Air pollution and climate change are basically symptoms of the same underlying problems: waste and inefficiency. They have the same solutions. Everything is related to everything else, as Icon pointed out earlier. In other words, you can kill three or four birds with one stone, or even six or seven if you deploy a bit of joined-up thinking. It's nothing to do with confusing people - although apparently it's quite easy to confuse non-scientists.
Here's a hypothetical scenario. India (for example) is endlessly whinging that climate change is all the fault of The West, and therefore (a) India should be free to fuck up their bit of the planet in the Name Of Progress to the same degree and (b) Westerners should pay lots of money for the damage done.
Let's say Trump (ha!) said to the Indian government: fine, guys - here's 50 billion dollars. You have to spend it on American PRT technology. You guys are going to be the first people on the planet to implement space-age efficient, low-cost, solar-powered transport. We're going to see all those dollars flow back into the pockets of rich American businessmen, and you guys are going to get some awesome tech, for free, that will solve your disgraceful urban pollution and traffic-jam problem for 20 years at least. A whole bunch of low-income families will get a lot more employment opportunities because of the dramatically lower cost of transport. Oh, and incidentally, it'll reduce your carbon emissions by about 30%.
According to the Jotham school of thought, this should be vetoed on the basis that it's explicitly presented as climate-change mitigation.