Does 'eco-friendly' necessarily mean 'cheaper'?

I've been having to address this issue quite frequently lately so I have decided to tackle this issue in our blog.

Generally speaking, people assume that if something is 'eco-friendly', it means that the cost to purchase is cheaper. And with regards to some things, it does. But, for the most part, the answer is a big, fat "NO". I know, its ironic that it costs more money to make steps towards a sustainable future...at least, this will be true until the demand for sustainable products is higher.

And you're probably disagreeing with me right now by naming off a dozen ways it can be cheaper.

For example:
'Cheaper ways to be eco-friendly':
1) Re-use plastic bags
2) Walk or ride a bike for transportation
3) Recycle bottles and cans
etc, etc...

Yet, what choices are we making as consumers when we purchase new items?

Remember the movie Vanishing of the Bees that I talked about in my last post? The film-makers exposed an interesting new trend with honey. Barrels and barrels of fake-honey are shipped from China at 18 cents a gallon leaving it impossible for US commercial beekeepers to compete. Disturbingly, this honey from China is altered with milk and man-made syrups. So no wonder they can afford to sell "honey" to America at 18 cents a gallon! And yet large American corporations purchase this honey since it is so cost effective to use in their food products....which we eat.

So....would you rather pay a little more to consume real honey made from real bees? Or would you rather pay 18 cents a gallon to consume fake honey? The answer seems pretty obvious to me.

Although the upfront lower costs might immediately gratify our pocketbooks, we pay dearly for these cheap products on the back end. And the consequences are killing us.

What are your thoughts?