I think this is a big part of why, to-date, the environmental movement is comprised of the relatively wealthy, and what I would characterize as "true believers" who don't have much, but are okay with that, and okay with living their lives in a way that minimizes their impact. The first group have the spare capacity to do something about their impact, and the second group take it on as a mandate that often (but not always) affects their ability to function in broader society (or: how do you hold down a decent job if you ride a pushbike everywhere?).
My personal belief is that any successful environmental movement needs to go hand-in-hand with a more equitable distribution of wealth in society, and focus on quality-of-life, so that the people in the middle have the spare capacity to give a shit. Otherwise, you're going to bump into the ugly reality of people's day-to-day, and your movement will be perceived as rich people -- who make up the bulk of consumption to begin with -- telling everybody else how to live their lives. Which is exactly what's happened. I don't think it's an accident that the countries farthest along the path to decarbonization also have some of the best income equality, and quality-of-life on the planet.
We already see this to some extent, as people with free workplace charging often choose that over home charging when possible.
At the lowest level it's people plugging things in at specific times to save pennies.
But people can build systems to do this automatically, like the ripple signal that's been used for half a century to turn on water storage heaters.
People can build entire business around building widgets that will help other businesses save money.
The (soylent) green energy market is people.
Have you read the study ? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01105-7
> you just use natural market forces and the problem fixes itself.
Never worked, never will, borderline sounds like a cult following, "The all mighty market will automagically fix it with no human intervention"