Not buying any petrol product is good for the environment and the economy.
Limiting the use of petroleum products will actually harm the economy because petroleum is used in the production of goods and services. Replacement technologies must be developed and implemented before any meaningful reduction of petroleum consumption is economically feasible.

Several obvious petroleum replacement technologies have been explored, tested, partially implemented and all but abandoned. The most infamous are all related to the production of energy by alternative means - nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, coal and gas.

Without a continuing supply of petroleum products several sectors of our economy would cease to exist including high technology, transportation, pharmaceutical, plastics and a large portion of manufacturing.

Criticism always turns to a discussion of the automobile. We need mass transit, more fuel efficient cars, slower speed limits, ad nausium.

Mass transit will not work in most of the US because of decisions made last century to disburse the centers of production and the population. I live in a major metro area, yet there is no city center, no factory district, no office district. Those facilities are here, but disbursed throughout the geographic area. There are not enough people going from area A to area B to support a bus route let alone mass transportation. Even then one may have to hire a car to go from a mass transit terminus to their final destination.

Fuel efficiency and slower speed limits can also be counterproductive. As the saying goes "time is money". It is true. When a national speed limit was implemented reducing speeds by more than 25% (75 mph --> 55 mph), many trucks actually consumed more fuel at the slower speed because they had to use a lower gear. They became obsolete immediately. Labor costs increased substantially. Delivery of goods was delayed. This was not good for the economy.

Reducing petroleum consumption is good if, and only if, there are replacement technologies available.