I don;t disagree with the gist of the article, that the marketing/ mesaging can be much more effective. But it is ludicrous to suggest that Sinek (whio does say and write valuable things) is the furst to suggest this, as well as the alternatives. I don;t think global warming has appeared in serious coverage for at least 5 years, it is all about climate change. While the 'cancer' metaphor MIGHT help to invoke more urgency it builds on the intermediate step. And the second point is even older. The fact that the planet will survive but we won't, and that close-by concrete interests trump abstract ones (although it is not quite as binary as that, for the vast majority of people) is not only obvious but has been central part of the narrative for a long time as well, save for some very hardcore campaigners. The quotation marks are justified, but not if they imply that he is the original source of this statement.
So, all in all, yes to the relevance, no to the suggestion of its novelty.
But, and that is how it works as well, if someone with social authority starts to copy these things and back them publicly, that can in fact help. So, all fine if that is the result. Misrepresenting them as fully new insights might in fact backfire. We'll see what happens.