There are other, more quantifiable variations on the old “you get what you pay for” argument. The state of California created a task force to analyze the costs and benefits of building green, and it found that while green buildings did cost more up front — by an average of $4 per square foot — the long-term savings in energy, water, and waste, as well as the increased health and productivity of the workers inside those buildings, led to a 20-year benefit of about $50 to $68 per square foot. A superefficient washing machine or refrigerator will cost hundreds of dollars more than an inefficient one, but the eventual payback in energy savings is definite. A hybrid vehicle is thousands of dollars more than a nonhybrid, but with gas prices at record highs, it gets cheaper very quickly.

While a pair of recycled-polyester boxer shorts might not pay their buyer back, the production process for the filament used in those boxers is comparatively energy efficient, and the textile company pays less for the raw materials needed for recycled polyester than it would for the petroleum-based chemicals that go into virgin polyester, notes Patagonia’s Dumain. Meanwhile, rising oil prices are pushing the cost for those virgin materials up further. “At some point, there has to be a point of intersection, and recycled will end up costing less than virgin as recycling increases and volume increases and the feed stock grows,” she says. “That’s what needs to happen to take it out of the specialty realm. It’ll take years, but we have to start somewhere.”