The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is something we must be able to see. We get a lot of effects of a larger change, and pick the one that in a partial way, in a particular light, can be painted as positive.

There are a lot of "greener" things, the article talks only about a few of them, and some particular consequences. For example, greening in northern regions because losing permafrost is not positive, and lowering albedo (compared with not so dark colours) also increases warming. It is not something even across the whole planet or land regions, it may or not lead to sustainable CO2 level reductions, and when depleted water sources falls down, it could lead to more emissions.

It should be part of a bigger and complex process that is happening, it might slow down some bad trends in some particular regions, but the whole picture matters, and the trends of the big problem seem to not be affected, or at least seem to keep going strong(er) in the same bad direction.