You're not thinking strategically. The US is one of the biggest emitters of CO2, and coal plants are about 1/3 of that. If the study can convince the population to reduce their use, even if with a different argument, that's helpful for the whole planet.
James Cromwell was arrested for protesting a dirty and unnecessary coal power plant in NY, but I don't think it made a difference. I think academic research that's newsworthy has much more and different punch than direct action. Using the existing broadcasting platforms scales more that all the screaming and picketing in Times Square, grandmas with prayer stick beaten down, dogs dripping with human blood or girls arms blown off when the news isn't watching.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume any important outcome of said study will be seen as valid by the people in power who can do something about the results of the study. Many high power people in the government actively try to present scientists as liars and frauds, and you think we should just let the data speak for itself? How's that working out so far?
Almost all research has ulterior motives in this sense, particularly government-funded research. You want to guide policy so you collect information on the impact of that policy, existing or proposed. The alternative is to make policy in the absence of data.
Research guided this way is problematic only if it amounts to cherry-picking of facts, studying only the benefits or costs to the exclusion of the other.
And what different argument? By giving them away money for free in addition to the amounts they ransack from the rest of the world already? (just think about 1$ = 1€ as an example)
