You have the causality exactly backwards.
Your shoe example is beautifully rigged: you've contrived a scenario where both options pollute equally and the company profits the same either way; so of course the only variable left is consumer choice. How handy. But in the real world, the company decided what to produce, how to price it, and what trade-offs to build in. The cheap shoe exists because the company chose to manufacture it at that price point rather than, say, making only the durable version and pricing it at 1.3x. The product landscape a corporate decision. You're treating the menu as if it fell from the sky.
You dismiss demand engineering as "just an advertising campaign." Advertising is a multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry built on decades of behavioral psychology, and that's before you get to planned obsolescence, lobbying to suppress alternatives, and regulatory capture to keep externalities unpriced. Cigarettes aren't the exception; they're the most documented example of a widespread practice.
Your EV example backfires even harder. For decades, automakers actively killed electric vehicle programs and lobbied against emissions standards. The "choice" you're pointing to was shaped by years of corporate behavior. And even now, when TCO is lower, upfront cost still gates the decision. If you can't aford the higher initial purchase, long-term savings are irrelevant. That's not irrationality. That's resource scarcity doing exactly what it's designed to do.
Choice requires resources: money, time, information, access; which is precisely what is most scarce among those you're blaming. And that scarcity is systemic by design, not a result of consumer inaction. You're looking at people responding rationally to a landscape they didn't build, can't control, and can't afford to exit, and calling it their fault.