This reminds me of a discussion I had with friends fawning over an acquaintance who had flown from CA to the Standing Rock protests. I said, wow, that's a lot of carbon to be at a protest. They said, that's not the point. I said, but, what if it is?
That is a surprisingly uncharitable take on what sounds to me like a responsible and respectable choice to abide by one's principles, for which the author has offered both ethical and practical reasons. He's not criticizing his employer for letting him go, nor even naming the organization; he appears to be accepting the consequences of his choices, and talking about the situation in hopes of bringing further attention to an important problem. It seems unreasonable to dismiss this as a "luxury belief", unless perhaps you have a very cynical worldview which interprets all principled choices through that lens.
You may get jumped on here, let me see if you agree with this interpretation: it's ironic that placing his moral commitment to available transportation and his management's lack of belief in climate action is a luxury commitment?
As an academic, he can afford to have such luxury beliefs. For example, imagine how this incident would be discussed in an academic interview. Most departments would entertain these antics
