>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 th

>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.