A man steps out onto the patio of an English pub, sets down his pint of bitter, and lights a cigarette. He zips up his jacket and grumbles about the damp chill in the air, and that grumbling sets off a chain of events with implications for the global appliance industry. File it under the Law of Unintended Consequences. England banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public places last year, and puffing patrons were not happy about stepping out into the cold to smoke. Concerned over losing business, pub owners began installing gas patio heaters to make their outside customers more comfortable. The trend quickly spread, and sales of patio heaters soared. Good news for the appliance industry, right? Not exactly.

Environmentalists took note of this phenomenon, and soon they were the ones grumbling. They talked about the absurdity of trying to heat the Great Outdoors, the amount of energy wasted doing so, and, most importantly, the resulting increase of carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on global warming. Before long, the critics were tossing out numbers to back up their claims. One study, based on usage “estimates” and sales “projections” asserted that English pub patio heaters by themselves would increase carbon dioxide emissions by 165,000 metric tons per year. Others contested such studies, saying that usage estimates were inaccurate and conclusions lacked context and comparisons to other products. They fought back with figures of their own, suggesting that use of  plasma televisions in the U.K. accounted for many times more carbon dioxide emissions than patio heaters.

But the environmental groups continued bashing patio heaters, calling them planet wreckers and carbon-belching monstrosities. The groups failed to obtain a government ban, but got the next best thing. Earlier this year, many large national retailers in England caved into pressure and agreed to stop selling patio heaters. Other outlets followed suit, making the appliance harder to find, even for the homeowner wanting one for occasional use. Now, regardless of one’s position on patio heaters, smoking, or even drinking, the important point is that an appliance desired by customers is being removed from a market by third-party social pressure, not by government or agency regulation. Study well this little drama, as it is very likely a portent of things to come.

A growing number of companies are pursuing the concept of sustainability, wanting to be good corporate citizens. That trend includes retailers. You can go to walmart.com/green to see how the goal is altering that company’s product mix. Promoting sustainability is mostly a good thing when pursued rationally, but green proclamations also place a company in the crosshairs. For example, the organization Greenpeace periodically attacks specific makers of consumer electronics for failing its “green electronics” test. Is the test fair? If not, what could anyone do about it? What if the concept of products having to pass a “green test” catches on?

Envision a scenario where an environmental group slaps a big, red X on a popular product for failing its green test. Important retailers or distributors, in an effort to establish their green credentials, decide to stop carrying that product. And just like that it all begins, the rise of the Green Court, a body of self-appointed judges with unlimited jurisdiction whose powers supercede both the free market and the government. The dangers of such a court are numerous, but unfairness tops the list. In the April 21, 2008, edition of Newsweek (p. 42), a cofounder of Greenpeace explains that he left the group because of the way it uses sensationalism, misinformation, and fear tactics. Unfortunately, such practices will be standard operating procedure in the Green Court, which will make its own rules, and allow no defense or appeal. And those who are hastily convicted may, like our pub crawler, find themselves out in the cold.