Yes, to the glass, but it's annoying a segment of the populace that may otherwise be sympathetic.
I think they factored that in. I understand the idea of shock protest, but I think it is much more effective if you just announce your intention to do something. You get all the coverage and freak out and it lends itself, since it is a hypothetical, to an abstract argument:
1. Would such an act
ever be justified?
2. Well, if you're a utilitarian, that would depend on what you lose compared to what you save.
3. Hence it turns on what the impact of the environmental devastation is...
and then you're off to the races, having gotten people to engage in discussing the real life effects of climate change, etc.
A decade or two ago some philosophy student announced he'd stream himself burning a kitten alive on such and such a future date, to draw attention to I forget what -- climate, health care, homelessness, AIDS, something. Now the fact that I can't recall the details tells you this didn't exactly work as an act of consciousness raising, but something like that -- in the abstract future -- is probably more effective.
The other way to do it is to center all the suffering on yourself, like the monk who set himself on fire to protest Vietnam. Then all the people who want to change to subject and prevent the discussion at least can't invoke tropes of damage done to a public good.
It is difficult to wake the gen pop, and the pols who pander to it, from their moral coma. Don't Look Up covers this beautifully.