It’s baffling why the NYT always adopts this kind of rhetorical framing when it’s such a poor persuasive technique. If you want people to change something, pointing out the benefits to them is infinitely better than chiding them about the externalities their existing choices have 
You also see this with the zillion “Eat the bugs, peasant” articles (cc @TheStalwart). You know what bug people have no problems being scolded into eating? Lobster, because they’ve been sold as a decadent food for the rich, not something optimized for a high protein per unit CO2
You should use an expensive Japanese bidet because it makes you feel like a modern-day Louis XIV being pampered on a heated seat, not because old growth forests are being levelled to make toilet paper (they aren’t)
