I think any attempt to shame people into not doing something isn't going to get very far. It is easy to point at flying and say how damaging to the environment it is and how only a small percentage of people fly regularly. However the same can be applied to almost everything. It would be far more effective to look at how we can make it less damaging, for example more efficient planes or perhaps electric planes and yes of course alternative too (for example I can see no purpose in flights such as London to Manchester, it's a 2 hour train journey, for instance and even if you are going to Heathrow to catch another flight it should still be quicker overall by train once you factor in the time needed to get to the airport, check in, security and so on). Ultimately there is going to be some activity or hobby or interest you have that only a small percentage of the population do, that causes damage to the environment. How can you justify that damage to the environment? Because probably almost every hobby results in manufacturing and transporting something that isn't strictly needed, or going somewhere you don't need to go (but want to).
The trouble is most things people do are not essential and come at a cost to the environment. Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? If we severely restrict flying what if the next target was railways? Why do you need to take that trip to the coast or a national park. Why do you have to travel 100s of miles to visit friends or relatives? Why do you need to got a day out to a visitor attraction? Why should you travel hundreds of miles just to experience a different type of train or travel on a different line? Why do we need heritage railways? Yes it's easy to say the train is more environmentally friendly, but that only applies whilst there is another mode that is worse. But what is the environmental cost of all the diesel used in trains or the environmental cost of using all the electricity that is generated? What is the cost to the environment of creating all the steel for rails, transporting it and fitting it and maintaining it? I'm not signalling out railways of course, it's just this is a railway forum so it's probably something most people here are interested in! If we say most leisure travel is not needed, we could extend it and say much commuting is also not needed then surely we'd need fewer trains, fewer staff, perhaps fewer lines, depots, sidings and so on. We could plant trees on all the land saved. What if someone decided that trains travelling at high speed use more energy and so all trains should be restricted to 50mph for environmental reasons, so it takes much longer to travel by trains? Likewise motorways?
Most people will support banning or restricting something if the restrictions don't effect them.
I'm not meaning to cause offence here or seriously suggesting any of this but consider, why do we need beer or wine? What is environmental cost of producing it, bottling it, transporting it, the bars, shops, clubs that sell it. Not to mention health implications. Or the cost to the health service. Why do we need it? Everyone could survive on water. We could use the land saved growing barely for beer or grapes for wine to plant more trees. Or provide more housing or whatever. Why do we need hot drinks. What is the cost of all those kettles? Likewise why do we need cigarettes. What is the cost of producing them, transporting them, etc. No one needs to smoke. So how can we justify allowing it? What about football or rugby, or horse racing etc. Why is it OK for people to travel hundreds of miles to watch 90 minutes of a game when they could watch it at home on the TV? What about concerts? Or going to the theatre or cinema? Or keeping pets? Or eating meat? Or living in a larger house then they need? Or having a bath not a shower? Why should we all have kitchens and cook our own food - why not have large canteens we all go to eat instead? Ultimately you can point the finger to something, say it isn't necessary, it comes at a cost to the environment and so should be banned, taxed or restricted.
I suspect if you asked most people what should be banned, taxed or restricted they would suggest something they don't personally do or wouldn't be impacted by and would probably be angry if you suggested something they are passionate about and enjoy. It is human nature. This is why I don't think shaming people into not doing something is going to get very far.
Like I said I'm not being serious and suggesting we should stop any of the things I have suggested. But actually beyond eating, drinking, sleeping most of what we spend the rest of our time doing isn't needed. And a lot of what we do comes at a cost to the environment. And of course I do many of these things too. I'm not saying we should all stop doing anything - but it is very hard to know what lines should be drawn and why and this is why I think it is mostly about people pushing their own agendas.