I'm going to preface that just throwing around fallacies without any context actually doesn't explain anything, because now I'm left to assume where you're making the claim.

appeal to morality

So you don't think changing behavior in relation to climate change is morally necessary? You don't arrive at that conclusion based on available scientific data and projections? You don't think it's self-evident?

Tu quoque

Are you saying he didn't judge me as hateful? I don't think it's an error btw. I'm not accusing them of doing something wrong on the grounds that they did the same thing as me, they just applied judgement in a way that does less to cause one to take action on climate change. Assuming we hold the same concerns about the climate, and we want action, that's what makes the judgement objectionable.

Hasty generalization

Where

False dichotomy

Perhaps I'll have to look back at my comments because I don't see this either. I clearly qualified that I'm aware a single individuals choices don't have enough effect to deter climate change.

Begging the question

Where's the circular reasoning?

If you're going to tell people to seek help, nah, you should actually explain.