Making something with less impact takes more effort. Filters/knowledge you name it, does not come cheap. It is not the amount of resources it is the process of turning resource into product.

A cotton sweater is cheap. But if you want to make cotton sweater in a greener process, then you need water cleaning systems, maybe different paint (which is also more expensive).

No, we're not paying the cost on the impact on the climate of our products. We're basically borrowing / stealing this from the future, the poor and the commons.

No, as the cost of actions/methods/waste/materials of production aren’t always captured, the driving down of costs through competition actually encourages the discovery of externalities (ways to externalise the cost/impact onto others/environment/public good), “efficiencies” aren’t always net wins but a movement of negative impacts away from the production of a good/service.

Sorry if you already know this, but basic capitalism as practiced does not capture the full cost of things, if one believes that pollution or climate change or exhausting shared natural resources (something like government giving water away for free to corporate entities to resell in bottles) are things that should be accounted for in cost https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.h...

Software consultants are one counterexample, because they are very expensive but also environmentally friendly. Human labor has the biggest difference between price and resource consumption that I can think of.

> If something is cheaper, doesn’t it mean it took less resources to make it and therefore is the greener option?

Yes, that is mostly correct, but only if you are comparing products made in the same country.