But the problem with that is that the basic assumption is that less energy usage means better for the environment ... except of course ... First of all, that f

But the problem with that is that the basic assumption is that less energy usage means better for the environment ... except of course ... First of all, that flies in the face of economic logic. Specifically Google "Jevon's paradox" for an explanation. So first of all, this reasoning just isn't true. Second, you want to use things that cost less energy ? That's easy : use the cheapest possible thing. By necessity it will have less energy usage, since energy still is the major cost in pretty much every product. But when you look at the Green movement, you see the exact opposite. The Green movement has very little success among the poor. It's a rich person's game ... and so they have plenty of products they push, Tesla's for example, that are absolutely not good for the environment, but are a high-cost way of "proving" you care for the environment, which of course is a very good way of achieving the exact opposite.