That isn't the message. The comment is about how it is journalistic malpractice to pretend CC is caused by individuals. Which it is. Cuz random individuals aren't causing climate change. The comment is about the framing not whether or not you should be wasteful in emissions. Those corporations arent in power simply because consumers pay them or buy stuff. Those corporations include things beyond consumer good products. For example the US military is the world's biggest polluter. Which sorta shoots a hole in the idea individuals not institutions are the cause of climate change. The american consumer doesn't even vote with it's wallet on how a lot of these companies maintain their existence. A lack of nationalization or consumer responsibility isn't the issue. The issue is a lack of democratic access to control of infrastructure and use of goods is.
Even if we pretended that the real driving cause of pollution was consumers (it's not) pretending that consumers and not policy makers are drivers behind why consumers act in ways that increase pollution is also stupid. When all the consumers are consuming a lot it isn't the individual being the causal variable because the consumption being high is remaining constant while each different individual in a group definitionally varies.
Want people to eat less meat? Bitch about government subsidizing meat and making externalities less obvious to consumers and support nutrition access programs. Saying its the responsibility for people in food deserts who buy subsidized meat because food supply lines break constantly and meat is the affordable consistent option doesn't help fight climate change effectively. PS meat consumption policy are unsurprisingly encourage by meat producers.
Want mass transit to be used and people to not use cars? Mass transit needs made accessible and shitty urban design not requiring the car specifically needs to stop being a norm. Get transportation infrastructure largely being geared to being walkable or within public transit access so people don't need access to a 2 ton car to get to their job or to access public services. Suburban planners tend to plan for using the car at the expense of other methods of getting around. Complaining about the guys that bought a car and use it to get to places because they literally cant walk or ride the train/bus everywhere doesn't fight climate change effectively. PS Car makers and other institutions fight against actually accessible transportation.
Want less AC emmissions. Encourage retrofitting and helping communities that most need AC and ban crap that causes pollution that consumers don't get properly informed about. You know what HFCs are. Cuz those were like a 1000 times more heat trapping than CO2 and activists had to go out of their way to explain to people why they needed banned as that whole 1000 times more heat trapping then CO2 and it's implications sure as hell wasn't properly warned by vendors. Or maybe the people that live in Southwest or the South who use AC the most are at fault rather than people that accidently bought dangerous ACs. Even though the consensus why consumers that use AC the most do cause they need AC. Blame the consumers who use AC to not overheat cuz they don't want to abandon their home. It is better than blaming house developers that made less energy efficient homes increasing emmissions.
The CNN tweet didn't even question why do people consume in such a manner. It just shifts responsibility to consumers as though they are the cause of CC. Which is biased bs that is blaming random people rather than fighting climate change.