LOX/RP1 is pretty awful for the environment - space-flight is by no-means eco-friendly (I suppose apart from the Space-shuttle main-engines)
It's relatively straightforward to synthesize methane (Starship fuel) from a stream of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
In the past people got the carbon monoxide from pyrolysis of coal
https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasificati...
but today people are doing it with carbon dioxide extracted from the air or from another combustion process.
You could make RP1, Jet Fuels, and other hydrocarbons this way too
https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasifi...
but the chemistry is tricky because the reactions that break chains down to methane or build them up to polyethylene will run quickly except when conditions are balanced on a knife edge... One where the reaction rates aren't too high and amount of product you get for the size of the machine is not good.
3 fully loaded 747s carry a lot more passengers than Falcon 9 does on one launch, and for a much more effective and better reason than just outer-atmosphere space tourism...
The primary ideal of space tourism is simply entertainment. It's a roller coaster ride of sorts. Especially if the launches grow in popularity, the impact will be far worse. It's is not sound logic to say it's harmless.
Such a person could easily burn an orbital flight full of fuel in less than two years.