Armchair economist thought of the day:
We're Good People if we shift our spending habits to use less resources (Lower Your Carbon Footprint), right? And we're Very Good People if we do this even when it means spending a little more money to do so, by buying the more expensive item that used less fuel to get here, or buying the more expensive electricity from the eco-friendly power plant.
But doesn't that just lower the demand on the fuel and the dirty electricity? Doesn't that lower its price? The Industrial user, without my hippie compunctions, has no incentive to use the expensive power; they're rewarded for using the cheap and dirty stuff.
So please explain how the whole "green shopper" movement or whatever it is we're calling it is not just a plot by The Man to get us to pay more for stuff, encouraging us to use our money in less efficient ways, leaving more cheap resources for the Man's own personal gain.
(I think this was prompted by hearing that the UK banned incandescent light bulbs, or something like that. Incandescent light bulbs aren't a problem, vacuum and glass is not a scarce resource. And if you're not spending those watts on your lights, someone else is just going to buy them and spend them on something else.)