I'm not NT but maybe I can give some advice, constructive criticism as someone who agrees with your overall point.

I think being generous on that point backfired because it made the other changes seem less necessary. It meant being more insistent on other points, which are more subjective, like, "exactly where do you draw the line between sacrificing for the environment vs maintaining quality of life?" It's better to be generous on questions like that while sticking to your guns on facts you can support with data.

It could also help to point out that lifestyle changes are something people can do right now, while regulations have to go through political processes with lots of money working against them.

Also I just realized you may have been referencing carbon neutrality when you say "100% reduction." The way I (and I think others) interpreted it was not "net zero emissions" but just "zero emissions." The planet removes some carbon naturally, so it's ok to have some pollution, we don't need to go back to living in mud huts or anything. The question is, where can we get the most bang for our buck in reducing overall emissions to bring us closer to net zero, and the answers are the things you mentioned.