I read the article, but I think they need to be very careful with how they word their warnings. Obviously things like not having internet or a pizza being late are not 000 worthy, and definitely not an emergency. But if all everybody ever hears is "make absolutely certain it's an emergency before calling 000", eventually that will most likely lead to people being unsure whether or not to call 000
The last thing you want is somebody with chest pains being too scared to call for help because they're worried that it could just be something minor and benign
Another problem is that people's definition of an "emergency" varies quite widely. Sure, everybody can probably agree a gnarly car crash is an emergency, or witnessing a stabbing is an emergency, but what about things that are more on the line? There are also different kinds of emergencies, and they all need different responses. I'd consider a burst pipe in my bathroom to be an emergency, but obviously a plumber emergency not a police emergency. But if that pipe was outside and rapidly flooding the road, I'd also consider that an emergency and most likely call 000
And when it comes to things like animal control, there isn't one centralised number to call, or one place to look. I'm not defending calling 000 over a "menacing" cat, but I think the complexity involved in figuring out who to call contributes to people just calling whoever they can. And animals are also a unique case, because there are some situations where I'd definitely call 000. If an animal managed to escape from a zoo and was causing chaos, that could very well be an emergency. That's yet another layer of complexity that requires active thought. I don't think the sort of person who thinks cats are menacing and calls the police on them is capable of such high level thought