Being cheap vs. Being Green

What is the difference between being cheap and being green? In many cases they are the same. Consuming less is cheaper, and better on the environment. Using an existing good for a longer period of time reduces costs, and reduces the impact on the environment.
However, there are also cases where cheapness and greenness are on opposite sides. Imported produce may be cheaper than local organic produce, but much more damaging to the environment. There is also a large murky middle ground. A hybrid car may be more expensive and "less green" to manufacture. However, it is cheaper and more green to operate. The lower operating costs could increase driving, thereby negating any green or cost benefits. Or, if a heavy driver retains the constant driving habits, it could be more green and more economical. Or if driving distance is already low, the savings may never exceed the purchase premium. However, the premium could be seen as a "green investment" in an improved technology.

The difference between "cheapness" and "greenness" can be identified by sorting out the true costs of goods. On basic level, most everything has a "raw material" and a "labor" cost involved. Sort out the two, and get a true cost from the "raw material" cost. But labor itself also involves raw materials. Perhaps a cleaner way would be to separate "energy" and "markup". The energy cost can further be separated in to "renewable" and "nonrenewable" categories. Markup can include basic profit margins, as well as taxes, subsidies, and other "rent seeking" behavior in the production.
Research and development can also be considered part of the markup. R&D, however, does not necessarily green in itself. Often it leads to improvements that reduce the amount of energy inputs needed. However, at other times, it may increase the inputs (while at the same time increasing selling prices.) Costs are also not uniformly applied. Drug companies, for instance, may sell the same drug at very different costs in different countries, even though manufacturing and research remain unchanged.

Economic analysis can also lead to distortions. A time-discounted method could render future energy savings moot. A short term value of time could also lead to consumption of heavily processed foods, in spite of the health and cost disadvantages. However, with a thorough analysis, the economic view should end up similar to the 'green' view for most commodity items.

With non-commodities, social impacts and desires can make a difference. On an individual level, the decision to not own a car, and walk or bike everywhere is a more green behavior. However, it could also be argued that not everybody is willing to do that now. Buying a fuel-efficient hybrid is a way to help support auto-industry improvements that will allow everyone else to be more green. However, these improvements may allow others to drive longer, delaying the point when they give up their car. Perhaps a personal long term 'cheapness' analysis is the best way to remain green.