>Can you make a reasonable argument, that given the same manufacturer and roughly the same workers that the $30K car wouldn't by definition cause about twice the environmental damage as its constructed as the $15K car?
That doesn't make sense at all. There is not a 1 to 1 relationship, or even a linear relationship, between price and environmental damage.
All your arguments seem like you're trying to equate low-cost in dollars with low environmental damage. This is not the case, in food or in cars. In fact in many cases the exact opposite is true.
That doesn't make sense at all. There is not a 1 to 1 relationship, or even a linear relationship, between price and environmental damage.
All your arguments seem like you're trying to equate low-cost in dollars with low environmental damage. This is not the case, in food or in cars. In fact in many cases the exact opposite is true.