I suggest read the original study instead of a paper’s interpretation of it. They suggest action, and that’s changing the suggested inhalers people use in most cases. It’s not “blame people for thing”, it’s “here’s a problem and how we can dramatically reduce it with some minor systemic changes”

All but 2 therapeutic classes (short-acting muscarinic antagonists and ICS-SABAs) had dry powder and/or soft mist inhalers available. If patients during the study period had received the inhalers with the lowest emissions intensity available at the time in each therapeutic class, total emissions would have decreased by 92%, from 24.9 million mtCO2e to 2.1 million mtCO2e (eTable 6 in Supplement 1).

[…]

This study identifies a high ceiling for potential climate-related gains from switching patients to therapeutically equivalent alternatives. Any such efforts to shift prescribing will likely depend on broadscale formulary changes—and the policies required to incentivize such changes—rather than just individual actions by patients and physicians, who may be limited by payer formularies when choosing particular inhalers

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…/2839471