The problem here is that there are two distinct arguments going on...
The big picture - the earth is hurtling towards oblivion unless things change....
The immediate picture - direct protests disrupting daily lives...
To me, it is too simplistic to use the first to justify the second, because there is a massive disconnect between the two.
By that, I mean that individually many people are taking steps, some small, some larger (some not at all) to adapt their behaviour to help the cause and need to be encouraged to keep doing so and to go further.
That will be achieved by bringing the population 'with' the campaign (education, encouragement, goodwill, momentum, achievable & quantifiable steps) NOT by indiscriminately making their lives harder, causing MORE energy use and just p1ssing them off.
These individual changes may or may not save the planet on their own, but they will help and can also provide the momentum for change at a higher level.
However, if the aim of this action is to drive that change at a higher level, which I imagine is the case, then it is not going to work.
By alienating the population, they are disabling the pressure for change that popular support would provide. If the people are behind a campaign then change will happen (for PR reasons, if nothing else), but if they aren't (or aren't behind the methods used) then that allows the big boys to justify their current policies/pace for change amid language of 'not giving in to terrorists' etc.
Many causes have set themselves backwards by going too far, or screaming too loud, and this is in severe danger of being the latest