The predictable complaints began as soon as Extinction Rebellion launched its fortnight of protest in London, part of an international campaign of civil disobedience in as many as 60 cities worldwide. Politicians have moaned that the police are being too passive, and Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, labelled the protesters – who include a former Metropolitan police detective – “uncooperative crusties”. In a characteristically bullying interview with one of the founders of XR, Piers Morgan repeatedly demanded an answer to the question: “Do you have a television?” The presenter’s insistence that a personal carbon footprint of close to zero should be a prerequisite for joining the protests is a little silly. Far-reaching structural solutions are required to limit global heating to the 1.5C threshold identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; it is not necessary to forgo Match of the Day or Strictly Come Dancing to have the right to call for them.

More troubling is the strain of opinion that holds that, though sincere and well-intentioned, XR’s supporters fail to supply adequate or practical answers to a crisis they describe in hyperbolic terms. The protests, it is suggested, are self-indulgent theatre. Overstating the problem with banners stating “We’re f****d”, while failing to offer realistic solutions, may even harm the cause the protesters wish to promote.

It is true that XR needs to think carefully about the level, frequency and targets of the chaos it imposes on the public. But a radical social movement pursuing a strategy of civil disobedience is not trying to be some kind of government-in-waiting. The job of a movement such as XR is to be well organised, innovative and eye-catching and keep the climate crisis looming large in the imagination of the public and politicians. On those criteria, it is succeeding. The carnivalesque quality of its activities – the performance art; the yoga on a London bridge; the raves and breastfeeding sit-ins – may be derided by some, but is part of the reason for its success.

The movement’s three demands in these October protests are that the government does more to communicate the urgency of the climate crisis; that it legally commits to net zero carbon emissions by 2025; and that a citizens’ assembly be convened to oversee the changes. The last idea has already been adopted by President Emmanuel Macron in France and deserves serious consideration. XR claims, with justification, that the adversarial nature of parliamentary politics inhibits the radical risk-taking that the climate crisis requires. The damning failure to achieve cross-party reform of a social care system acknowledged to be broken proves the point. Zero emissions by 2025 is surely an unrealistic goal. So what? The aim is to provoke and chivvy politicians and businesses, in the hope that the previously inconceivable becomes the far horizon of the possible.

It is more or less a year since Extinction Rebellion first hit the streets, blockading five London bridges last November, and Greta Thunberg began her school strike. Since then, Britain has declared a climate emergency and committed to a 2050 target for emissions. Last month, the Labour party conference adopted 2030 as the date to aim for. Ipsos Mori reports that its latest poll found that 78% of Britons believe the planet is “heading for disaster”, up from 59% in 2013. On Thursday British Airways announced it would offset emissions from domestic flights from next year. Some, at least, are finally treating the crisis as on a par with the economy in terms of importance. The frame of the debate has palpably shifted, as it must, and XR deserve much of the credit.