[socillion]

Your "bratwurst vs quinoa" argument makes the assumption that negative externalities per dollar is constant, therefore negative externalities can be measured by dollars spent.

You later disprove this assumption yourself when describing how local goods can have fewer negative externalities than those imported from across the globe.

[VLM]

Transport cost isn't an externality because neither were will-call or transported by myself (other than the last mile to my house). The transport cost was baked into the retail price in both examples. I suspect it was substantially higher for the quinoa; its still baked into the retail cost of both.

In comparison, an externality would be using my wifes prius to pick up a quarter cow from the butcher shop instead of a SUV. The price of the cow is constant but total environmental damage depends how its shipped. There are enough organic farms in my area that its assumed you'll pick up locally so there's a fixed price and you handle your own shipping aka drive out to the farm and back. My wife is arranging a quarter cow and I'm told its about 50 miles round trip, which is only about a half hour away. I can see how this business model wouldn't work for people living in Las Vegas or another desert.

That money goes somewhere. If I give someone 2.5 times as much money, they Could theoretically do 2.5 times as much "bad stuff". There seems to be a lot of hostility toward that obvious logical idea, no idea why. Think about it... local oil change place down by the river... if 200 people each give them $20 they can dump two barrels of used motor oil in the river. Now if only 100 people give them $20, how do you propose they'll dump the same two barrels of used motor oil in the river, if they only have one barrel anyway?

If I hire a repairman to repair my rain gutters, he can only afford to keep his old truck running. If I pay 3 times as much so he installs new gutters, he now has enough dough for a downpayment on a new truck, so he buys a new truck. It seems blindingly obvious which transaction results in more environmental damage... more money meant new gutters instead of fixing them, and a new truck. Less money means neither.

You can fool the finances for awhile, but not forever. $10 of something greenwashed is inherently going to cause more total damage than something the opposite of greenwashed but only $4, especially if they're basically the same thing sold by the same type of people.

[socillion]

A negative externality is the cost borne by parties unrelated to the transaction. In this debate, that party is the environment. I'm confused by your usage of the term.

According to your argument, buying organic food is worse for the environment than buying non-organic food because it costs more. Likewise, buying hydroelectric power would be worse for the environment (have more negative externalities) than buying coal power if it cost more. Do you dispute the logic of this extension of your argument?