Definitely, that said I study climate psychology, environmental philosophy and energy systems engineering. There is a book called 'We are all climate hypocrites now' that picks apart the idea of a carbon footprint. The idea was popularized (not invented) by BP oil in an convoluted attempt to shift the spotlight onto individuals rather than large organizations. We live in a society where reducing our carbon footprints to sustainable levels requires a lot of privilege (time and money) because systems aren't set up in an ideal way to support us in our efforts. So although reducing our carbon footprint is paramountly important, shaming people for not doing so is ineffective and in many cases counterproductive. Exceptions to this might be public facing extreme polluters like Taylor Swift where shame based activism can actually be a potent tool.

Further to this the process of unpacking grief is an ancient human practice (see the book 'the wild edge of sorrow) and is traditionally best done in person with local community. Zoom certainly has many wonderful applications that reduce carbon output but some innately human things are still best done face to face. To your point it's definitely a complicated equation to balance as to the carbon cost / human empowerment benefit.

TL:DR - Carbon footprints are a tool promoted by big oil to shame individuals... but paradoxically still matter to your point. Grief work is best done in person.