That specific reason? I don't know, the article didn't say but their quote from them alluded to it.

The book does go into that feeling that it seems wrong on a values basis for most people, how the prevailing view in protest movements over the past 40 years or so has been that absolute non-violent protest (specifically that which extends to include inanimate objects, i.e. property, it doesn't advocate violence against people) is the only acceptable way to bring about change.

It then makes a case for targeted, direct action against property that is locking us into the climate crisis, given the urgency, lack of action from governments, and effort by industry to block and delay any action. Its pretty much the 'target the people who have the power to change things' that gets brought up in opposition to this kind of action.

So I dunno, you find me out there doing any of this stuff, but it was an interesting read and makes you think about how the calls to completely passive protest as the only acceptable type is pushed by the status quo because it doesn't work