I don't like the constant blame on "far-right" governments as if they are the only force that are denying climate change. When you have a green party expanding coal and closing nuclear plants, the problem is much deeper then partisan politics. I also side-eye the constant mentioning of NGO's as allies. NGO's exist for the ego of whatever millionaire busy-body funds it. They do not solve problems, they create photo-ops. With something like Climate change, anything that goes "too far" at stopping fossil fuels will inevitably affect the funding of the NGO so they have a perverse incentive to keep the climate movement at awareness, and make sure it can never get anywhere close to Law or Official Policy.
Finally his blue-print of diversity of tactics doesn't involve anything that would actually DO anything, the closest form of action he has is "civil disobedience." He is treating the climate movement as if the problem and solution are just not known. As if we just need a bit more research on it, and if only the corporations that are currently destroying the environment understood what they were doing things would be improve.
Current government action treats climate destruction as just the cost of doing business, and nothing this article advocates for tries to change any of that.