Interestingly, you just wrote:
You thought it wasn’t controversial. But I wrote a reply arguing with it and quoting a reasonably popular intellectual who disagrees with it. (Though your statement was ambiguous between the premise being 1) the the eco agenda would save the planet and doing terrorism for that agenda 2) the terrorism itself, by premise, would work and save the planet. (2) is harder to object to.)
It’s hard to always accurately predict/know what’s controversial. But people can often do pretty well at it when trying.