I agree that guilting people into submission won't work, but you can absolutely force people into living more environmentally friendly lifestyles. Taxes for one, to make products like beef too expensive compared to more environmentally friendly alternatives. Problem with that method though is that it mostly hits the working class instead of everybody, so I prefer laws to make environmentally friendly choices the only option instead. As an example, construction projects in Denmark has to calculate the total emissions of the project, and can't exceed certain thresholds. The same principle could be made for stuff like food production, car production, any type of production really. That way every single company is forced to be environmentally friendly, and will stay competitive.

Just hoping that the envronmentally friendly choices will become competitive by themselves will take too long though, if it will even happen at all, because the established products don't have the same expenses as something new and unproven.

But doesn't the message also mean, stop buying screen-y stuff?
Of course, the sponsors probably want users to use their screens less per day, enabling them to make worse screens that would still manage to work until the end of the warranty period due to less usage. But anyone thinking for more than 10 seconds about it would realise that creating the screen would also cause a climate impact, meaning, buy less, use for longer.