I get your sentiment, but I think you're presenting a false choice. Vague goals lend themselves more easily to group organizing and the construction of narratives. It's important to get beyond that level, but I don't think anything is preventing a mature conversation about refrigerants just because you started with the mile-high view of "system change." Frankly, the "list of solutions" you provided is equally vague. "Improving cookstoves," "Improving education," "Building onshore wind turbines." Each term is vague, invites more questions than answers, and can be interpreted as nonthreatening by those in power.

I'm currently sitting in front of a Whirlpool refrigerator. I bet they have a sustainability plan somewhere that mentions the importance of "managing refrigerants." It's probably less radical than you'd like. Maybe it's even a bit greenwashy. That's just how language works.

On the other hand, something like "Systems Change" has something "reducing food waste" doesn't provide. It intentionally takes the conversation away from individual action. Both terms are vague; systems change is probably vaguer. However, food waste runs the risk of sounding like an individual problem: "if lazy shoppers only managed their groceries and ate everything on their plates, then we'd be good!" I don't think that's how you see it, but Tyson probably has PR people ready to spin it that way. Maybe they'll even use it to squash regulatory change.

None of these terms mean much without substantive follow-up. Still, there will always be times/mediums/settings/relationships where vague words need to be used. That's just how language works.