This topic is really one of the reliable ways to start a nerd-fight. It's the automotive equivalent of when somebody in an office sends out mail urging everyone to turn off their computers & monitors when they leave to save electricity; you are almost guaranteed that within an hour someone will reply claiming that the surge of electricity when they are turned back on will increase the chances of damage the equipment sufficiently to make the savings a loss blah blah blah. You saw that kind of thread much more often in the days of CRT monitors, and before computers had reliable deep-sleep modes, but I guess the stop-your-engine-at-the-lights topic can still inflame the passions
Another good topic is "when I'm driving in the summer, should I run the air-con (stealing power from the engine) or open the windows (and increase your wind-resistance)?", or "don't compact-fluorescent lights (or solar panels) require more energy to manufacture than they will ever save?"
The simple fact is that although all these questions may have some objectively right and wrong answers, in the scheme of things they are probably totally irrelevent compared to the total amounts of resources that we consume every day. Turn off your engine or leave it running, CFLs or incandescents, recycle it or dump it, these are just marginal improvements at best. Until you're talking about an order-of-magnitude reduction, it just doesn't matter enough. This kind of thinking is a bit of a crutch, that maybe we can solve problems of growing population, diminishing resources, and spiralling energy costs by just having efficient cars and light bulbs and not changing anything about how we live. People can imagine and understand simple substitutions (driving a Prius instead of a Commodore) more easily than radical changes (travelling much, much less).