Seems like a reasonable position to me. He's saying that the argument amounts to "may as well try" and that it doesn't get into specifics of what the actual material consequences of the action would be, which is a fair critique. He doesn't say that the argument is wrong, just that it's not fully explored.

And he is right that retaliation by the state is the only truly foreseeable consequence, and that is a big deal. It's the main reason to avoid picking fights with the state unless you're in a position to win those fights. What "winning" looks like is up for debate and depends on your goals, but you have to consider the response.

It sounds like this is a question that can only be answered with empirical testing.

And as these sentences get handed down and there are more political prisoners and martyrs, more people will start to think that way.

Current eco activists tend to be very conscientious and considered about what they're doing. As it gets more popular, you'll get people joining who are considerably less measured in their actions, and the likelihood of drastic actions increases.

That would almost certainly only hurt poor neighbourhoods, and that's easy for the media to sweep under the rug. They've perfected the art of dehumanising the poor.

I think the reality is that we don't know the consequences. I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but the effects are impossible to predict.

That's probably why environmentalist movements that tend to be full of only the most conscientious people have shied away from it. They would want to know what they were getting into first.

If things get bad enough that ecoterrorism becomes popular and a wider array of people take up the cause, we'll probably find out the answer to these questions.