The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse

A passage from Conundrum was on an SAT practice test. After reading that brief passage, I knew this would be a great book. The book touts some of my preferred arguments about the environment, namely that we need to look at the big picture and not pieces in isolation.
Many "green" actions can have significant negative implications for the environment because they encourage us to continue much larger scale environmentally destructive behaviors. More fuel-efficient cars may eliminate a small amount of tailpipe emissions. This will save some money and make a slight dip in local pollution. However, the money saved will likely be cycled into other purchases that impacted the environment. Furthermore, the new car had to be purchased. The environmental impact of car production is often more significant than the impact of fuel to power it. However, the negative impacts of production are spread across many locations and not as readily noticed. Lower costs also encourage more driving. This encourages more development that is optimized for driving, including spread out areas with large roads and parking lots. More trips now require a car, leading to more pollution.
Similarly, efforts to relieve automobile congestion are often couched in environmental terms. If cars are not stuck in traffic, they wont pollute as much, right? Wrong. Adding new traffic lanes almost always increases demand. While there may be a short term reduction in congestion, in the long term, cars come to fill up the area, resulting in more congestion and much more pollution, along with more car-centric development. Even public transit can be damaging. While public transportation systems in dense urban areas may be helpful, most systems built today are sold as ways to "reduce traffic congestion". These far-flung transit systems often require park and ride lots and encourage more car-centric development in the netherworlds of metropolitan areas. Cars get a short term boost in faster travel times. If we truly wanted to help the environment and reduce traffic, we should also remove car lanes when we build transit system - however that is rarely done.
Residents of Manhattan are some of the greenest in the country. The emissions produced per person are much lower than any other major city in the US. Residents of supposedly "green" Vermont are among the most damaging to the environment. They use more resources, drive more and have a much more negative impact on the environment. They get to "enjoy" the nature that they are simultaneously destroying.
Many so-called sustainable and environmentally friendly practices are not scalable. A local farmers market lets residents access fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there is often a great deal of driving to get there. It cannot scale up to feed an entire population. Eating locally can also result in more negative environmental impact than eating "globally". Even "organic" farming practices can require inputs that are deleterious to the environment. Even our cleaner air and water come at a cost. We are often "exporting" pollution to other places (like China.)
What is one to do? The easiest is to consume less. Money spent does correspond fairly closely to environmental impact. Look at the big picture. Car emissions are something we see locally. However, the emissions from a single car are almost a rounding error in the total impact of automobiles. The production of vehicles and infrastucutre that supports this mobility is where the bulk of the impact is. Ditching the car will do much more for the environment than buying a fuel-cell electric hybrid. However, the significant benefit will not occur until enough of us drop the car and change the way our land is built up. Similarly, many other "small actions" may help us feel good about ourselves, but do very little for the environment. "Green energy" may help a little, but it still has significant costs. Consuming less is really the only solution.