Direct Action and the Moral High Ground?

Elizabeth Cripps (writer and moral philosopher) considers the 'relative rightnesses' of direct action by 'climate change' activists and current responses by the UK government (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/12/civil-disobedience-only-way-prevent-climate-catastrophe-just-stop-oil). Cripps admits that organisations such as Just Stop Oil are clearly breaking laws, by their blockading petrochemical installations. She also notes that some members of the public find direct action (also displayed by Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain) 'too disruptive'. This may be a prime reason why the current UK government desires to change the laws, making any challenge to their climate policies difficult/impossible. Cripps concludes, however, the direct activists will eventually be deemed to have had the moral high ground, over the government whose policies they are trying to reform. There is a very evident potential future disaster and government are also taking money from 'big oil'. She points out that many of the young people, who will be most directly affected by runaway climate change, don't even currently have the right to vote. Waiting for political change doesn't appear to be an option for them (or the planet?).