[biot]

Here's a trivial example disproving your entire argument:

$4 for a piece of wood from a forest where the company harvesting the wood does not replant any trees. They ravage the forest, leaving the land barren and unusable, before moving on to the next forest.

$6 for the same sized piece of wood from a forest where the company harvesting the wood replants trees, thereby increasing costs. They sustainably manage the same area of forest and the land remains fertile.

According to your logic, the $6 wood is 50% more environmentally damaging? Clearly we should all buy the $4 clearcut, ravaged forest wood because that manufacturer has less money to damage the environment with?