No human has a life free of polluting emissions, of course. However, my wife and I have no children, I have never owned a car (my wife owned one for a few years about fifteen years ago), we have a plant-based diet, we bike everywhere, and very rarely fly (I'd say "never" but we flew two years ago to visit a friend who was quite sick.)

Right now, our largest source of GHG is the heater in this rental we live in. Our hope is to buy our own place without that.

So we do better than most people: a lot better than the bozo in the article.

Why does it make any difference to the correctness my argument what I personally do? Of course, it doesn't.

Overall, the idea that if I have any emissions at all, even unavoidable ones, I can't criticize someone who for their own entertainment adopted a lifestyle that is pathologically generating GHGs is not a sound argument.

It is in fact is sufficiently famous it has a name - it's called Mister Gotcha. https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

And your original argument, that the problem is so big that no individual action makes a difference so we are free to do as we please, was discussed and refuted centuries ago by Kant - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative