What gets missed in carbon calculations - almost everything

It gets missed over and over again. The media is promoting some excellent ideas for a new carbon-reduced economy (here's another swag of great ideas) but it almost always involves simply replacing one existing form of engine or power-supply for another, with any pay-off well down the line. Yes, it's great to swap out petrol engines for electric, but the electricity still comes from somewhere.  Yes, reducing fuel use per kilometre is a great idea but what if it just means we drive further? Yes, solar cells are fabulous but how do they get onto your roof? Do they just materialise there, or are they trucked there? Do the workers drive to your site to fit them? How were the solar cells made - did it involve energy, and how much carbon was released? How long do we have to use the solar cells before we have neutralised the carbon released in their sales, marketing, manufacture, fitting and maintenance? We can ask the same about almost anything - including hybrid cars - and I can guarantee it won't be a pretty calculation.

I'm fairly certain (yes, this is an opinion only) that most of those who claim 'carbon-neutrality' haven't added it all up. In every case I've seen so far they look only at neutralising the variables, like fuel and power. When you add in everything else - the infrastructure, the elaborately manufactured goods, the services that supply, fit and maintain these goods - we can see an overwhelming problem. We are just fiddling with the edges and not attacking the central issue: our expectations are set sky-high and seemingly no-one is prepared to face that reality. We simply buy, use and discard too much stuff. And how do we propose to fix this? Well currently we propose to buy, use and discard even more - but slightly "better" or "greener" - stuff. Can someone explain how this helps?