Recently, a version of the fallacy is invoked by the environmental movement, in calculating how much pollution we can avoid if we would adopt green technologies, like solid-state lighting. Although it does use less electricity, it also increases demand for electricity by reducing the "price" of lighting. On net, you could end up with more pollution following a change from incandescent bulbs to solid state lighting.
To work out what solid-state lighting would do to the use of light by 2030, Dr Tsao and his colleagues made some assumptions about global economic output, the price of energy, the efficiency of the new technology and its cost. Assuming that, by 2030, solid-state lights will be about three times more efficient than fluorescent ones and that the price of electricity stays the same in real terms, the number of megalumen-hours consumed by the average person will, according to their model, rise tenfold, from 20 to 202. The amount of electricity needed to generate that light would more than double. Only if the price of electricity were to triple would the amount of electricity used to generate light start to fall by 2030.