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?
$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?