In 2016 people, dubbed the water protectors, were flocking to help protest the oil pipeline being built under the river at Standing Rock, potentially putting the local water supply at risk. They were travelling in for miles around in order to back up the natives who were being pushed aside and coming under attack from police in order to force them out of the way. So many people rallied to their aid, that eventually they won out and the pipeline didn't cross the river there.
The plight of the indigenous and everyone's effort was heard about across the world. It was talked about on social media and had it not become so high profile, the chances are that the pipeline would have been built there no matter how much they protested. Yet not everyone was supportive of all the people who travelled in to help with the protests. There were comments which pointed out that the fuel used by all those who drove or flew in only served to demonstrate why a pipeline was needed. There were accusations of hypocrites! flying around. Yet had only those who could get there by foot, bicycle or canoe gone, then they would not have had the success that they did. People used the resources they had available to get a result that was important and they raised awareness to some important issues at the same time.
Incidentally, that pipeline had been don't the very thing they feared would happen; leaking. Acres of farmland have been contaminated.
Years later, this debate still rages. Recently celebrities are being called hypocrites because they preach environmental care whilst jumping into planes and jetting across the world. The question arises whether they should even be allowed to be given a platform for what they have to say if they can't practice they preach. Why should we be listening to the messages celebrities are sending if they are causing more pollution with their activities than any of us?
It's a double edged sword. Ordinary people have been trying to raise awareness of these environmental issues for years, but few people were listening. Celebrities have a huge audience and, like it or not, a lot of respect. When they speak out, people are listening, hypocrite or not. Celebrities are actually our best way of reaching more people. They are also our best way of reaching the right people for the changes we might want. Admittedly, it would be a better example if they even just stuck to using commercial flights rather than private (commercial flights are going to run whether they're on them or not, after all), but then I guess they'd have to wear a disguise to avoid being recognised and harassed.
In an ideal world, they should practice what they preach, but this isn't an ideal world. Nobody is perfect and there will always things we don't like about them and what they do, but should that cancel out their message if they can get it where it's needed?
Yet perhaps I come from a bias where I don't see too much of a problem with the message they're sending. After all, when David Attenborough suggests the cost of flights should increase to discourage people from flying so often, that doesn't affect the largest part of the population who can't afford flights at the current prices anyway. The majority of the population don't fly, or rarely fly. So the people it will affect are the lower middle class and upper working class who aren't necessarily regular flyers, but save for the occasional holiday and would be facing the same situation as the lower end of the population. It must seem like the proposal is that fuel should be only for the use of the elite.
The 
After all, aren't we all hypocrites are some level?