There's plenty of demand for a, say, a zero-emission transatlantic flight, but that's simply not an option. "Consumer choice" can only act on the options it is given, options already limited by local "optima" in profit-seeking. Similarly, you basically can't eat without fossil fuel inputs without becoming a farmer yourself: modern production depends on them. Worse, your "consumer choice" provides poor signals with that kind of thing. Are you buying hippie food because it's "pure" and non-GMO or because it might (who knows) have fewer inputs? "Consumers" don't actually have sufficient supply chain knowledge to make these decisions. Hell, even with perfect knowledge it's difficult to figure out what to do.

There's an infinitely rehashed argument among eco libs about grocery bags: which kind sucks the least? Production analyses, ignoring their flaws, show trade-offs, not clear winners. Do you care more about land use, greenhouse gas emissions, landfill waste, deforestation, the ozone layer? How much? Are 8 ozone-eating units worse than 5 GHG units? It's a crazy thing to leave up to "consumer choice" but it's exactly the ideal case for it! Deep supply chain analyses and existential problems to try to avoid.

Consumer actions are a useful but insufficient tool that we should direct and then redirect to more effective collective action. Solidarity.