Moralizing is a race to the bottom. If you think that the existence of life on Earth is the paramount moral good and are e.g. willing to fly on a plane, you are a hypocrite.
I don't agree. I do think certain schools of moralistic thought fall down this path.
But it's not mendatory.
If we relax our need for dichotomy, while encouraging contemplation this is less of a problem.
What is "necessary"? I, too, regard global warming as the biggest threat to our species. I still don't think that makes someone a hypocrite for flying.
I think maintaining a quality of life for humanity is necessary. Sacrificing everything in the name of the environment is paperclip maximizing - what we really want is to find the optimal level of attention to the environment that gives us the best value over time.
I personally don't have a strong opinion here but do feel like most people lose track of the global picture yet get fixated on individual problems. I think this happens because we don't have a measure of the impact of our activity, we just vaguely feel like some actions are "good" and some "bad".
Corny example, recycling is considered "good", yet still has a net negative impact, but for most people it's enough to feel good and stop worrying.
Very few things are strictly necessary, but many are definitely unnecessary: perverted maximisation of profits, planned obsolescence, avoidable food waste etc. Tech example: avoidable software bloat causing global increase in energy consumption.