On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing

One thought, it seems that many green products are extremely stylish and well-designed. So like all things that are well-designed, there's a price premium.

I think people get wired up about pricing also because they figure green products are going to be more efficient and built with less materials. Hence, the price should be lower, but there's also the economics of supply and demand at work.

This post raises several interesting, valid points- but fails to see the forest for the trees. The achilles heel of this argument is that consumers in the industrialised world have been conditioned into buying things they don't need to exist. Manufacturing industries rarely produce needed commodities- instead, they use marketing to convince people to buy things they could easily do without. Ingenuity is the only unlimited resource which humans have at their disposal. When we outsource our capacity to think and create for ourselves- to industry- we lose touch with the faculties which have carried us through millenia to this point in human civilization.

I agree with Jason.

I think one of the reasons that most of the people in the comments section balked at paying over $100 US for the Binvention was because, though cute and well designed, it was essentially a glorified trash can.

You can talk as much as you want about how expensive recyclable materials are, but what's to stop you from borrowing a hammer, finding a couple of nails and reusing old furniture to make something similar - and for a MUCH chaper price and, since you're basically reusing, at a MUCH smaller environmental cost.

I love the furniture you post about, guys, but I don't know what kind of social cost I'd have to impose in order to raise my income levels to actually buy any of that stuff. As much as I'd like to have bamboo counters, sexy toxic-free couches and a slick recycled wood table... When I realize it'll cost me over $5K to get them, I make do with Craigslist (and yes, sometimes Ikea.)

Your argument on the value of the American dollar was interesting, but if I wanted to buy one of these today it would still cost me $110. I agree completely with the fact that the hidden costs of commodities is often many times more what the final product costs, but assuming the binvention was made in England and shipped here (who knows what country the recycled aluminum would be from), there would be hidden costs for this product as well. To me most importantly, when you look at the binvention there is not $110 worth of material and labor in the product. Before I ever look at purchasing an item I consider it's build quality compared to it's price, many products are priced to earn as much profit off the consumer as possible (I would not say this is what the binvention creators are trying to do, but I would consider there product a designer item.)

Elaine - Think of the recycling you're doing with Craigslist. Five Dollars for an old dining room table is a great price - and you're saving it from being at the curb and then in a landfill. Seems like a much better enviromental/social/ecenomical to stick with Craigs List or garage sales.

while many people here are enlightened enough to be willing to pay more for a green product, in general, green products will need to be (reasonably) price-competitive in order to survive in the marketplace. there has to be a good business model for green products, just as there is for non-green products.
regarding binvention: ikea, or the like, i'm sure, will pump out the binvention or similar soon enough - it seems very much like a product they would offer (it's basically three sheets of _whatever_ that can be flat-packed). it should also be noted that the price for the original binvention was for a limited first run production, i think, so is necessarily higher.

I can go buy plywood or any similar material and make my own binvention in a couple hours. If I source the materials right, it can be just as sustainable and the materials plus two hours of my time would cost me about $50.

As for furniture, freecycle and craigslist and the classified ads are what furnished our home. The only pieces of furniture that we bought new are from Just Cabinets, a local all-wood retailer. Can't speak for the VOC content or how the wood was harvested, but I do know that, unlike the particle board pieces people buy from other retailers, I can fix the furniture when it breaks, and that's got to count for something.

I think a lot of the anger about the prices of these things comes from the guilt people feel. We desperately want to live a green lifestyle, and feel guilty that our means can't let us afford this.

It's important to remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt: "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." You may not be able to afford a miniHome, but you can choose to live in an smaller, older home in town instead of a McMansion out in the 'burbs.

I have to disagree with Jason's comment; it's a predictable old "mass man" argument that doesn't hold water anymore. Oooh, scary big corporations try to trick you out of your money -- does anyone really believe that anymore? With the 10,000 specialty independent product review sites, blogs, forums and magazines out there, frankly any company that tried to flog a useless product would be out of business post-haste. Any business that doesn't really have its finger on the pulse of what people need or want will go bankrupt, and any company that ignores the requests of its own customers is just wonky. Frankly, it's not worth the negative PR.

Lloyd, you talk about the two people who bought your $3000 piece of craft furniture and people who buy a $200 Ikea shelf unit as if they are in the same market -- you sound a little bitter that more people didn't buy your unit; and you then go on to use the excuse of 'oh, saving the earth costs more' to justify exorbitant pricing on things that by rights should cost a lot less, and then go on to say that we should suffer in a design-less environment until we can afford 'the real thing'? Puh-lease!

There's a long-understood concept called market segments you might want to explore -- the market for $3000 handmade computer cabinets is much smaller than the market for $200 ones. If you wanted to go after the mass market, you could have hired an actual manufacturing engineer or two, found a way to scale up production while reducing the costs and bringing the retail price down, and not necessarily by being environmentally 'bad'. In fact, that's exactly what IKEA does today.

Unfortunately we are a culture of consumers. For many, shopping is therapy and buying is an addictive behavior. If items are higher priced across the board, then we are forced to buy only what we "need" and this benefits the environment by eliminating waste, of fading out the "old" to make way for the "new". I'm all for waiting to buy greener products until I can afford them. There are many people who won't do this either because they are impatient and want to purchase something now, or they won't ever be able to afford the higher priced, better, greener option. Frankly, I wonder how much stuff does anyone need? The minihome is a good idea at any price. Smaller is better, less is more. It seems to be a no brainer, buy less, buy only what you need, buy the lowest impact, healthiest product available. Now, if only the mainstream consumer could be convinced of this.

I'm one of those people suffering from the lack of a "reasonable minimum wage", so even if I agree with you that the price is calculated realistically, and the materials are healthier for me, and the product is saving the earth . . . I still can't afford it. I simply don't have the spare cash. Maybe after my new business takes off . . . . But for now, when I want to sort my recycling, I will get three old kittly-litter buckets (rescued free from the curb) and create a home-made recycling system. Recycled, probably already off-gased most of it's chemicals in it's past life as a kitty-litter bucket, and FREE.

I am concerned that the majority of Americans cannot afford a "Green lifestyle." There ought to be a middle ground between a $110 recycling bin, and dumpster diving.

Maybe if I had a job that took advantage of underpaid workers, I could afford a sleek, well-designed, energy efficient house made of recycled materials. But would I really be helping the world?

Thank you, thank you, thank you Lloyd for attempting to write a useful and helpful article on relative issues!

To Greg- No, if you wanted to buy a binvention today it would cost you £59. If you lived in the UK, you would need to compare that cost to what else you can purchase for £59 which for all of you who don't get it, really works out in terms of purchase power to about $59. If you were to produce a similar product in New York, you could probably sell it for less in dollars, however, if you currently want a UK made locally sourced product, then for YOU to buy it, you WILL pay more.

Again, if you don't believe me, please go to the following site and look at 'Kitchen Bins'. Argos is like Walmart here, lower than Ikea. Get it? See the prices? The binvention is WELL within the cost of a standard UK metal kitchen bin. (And by the way, as an American who has been living in London the past 3+ years, I do get this point pretty well and have spent countless ages trying to explain it to my family back home.)

http://www.argos.co.uk/

To Icelander- sure you can make 'something' similar, but I question if it is something that has as much quality and aesthetic appeal? If you did put in that level of detail and craftmanship, by the time you were done, how many hours of your work would it have taken? What price do you put on your man-hours? I bet you'd hit $59 pretty quick actually, or, if you lived and worked in the UK, £59 (which is NOT the same).

Finally to Gia- I agree with you completely. Being environmentally responsible should be available across the board. But that also means a range of options for everyone at every economic level. That doesn't mean reverse discrimination against people who have more. Across the board really does mean across the board, and interest has to start somewhere so that manufacturers see the value in sourcing responsible materials and working it into mass production. Though to reiterate, I'm really not talking about a binvention which simply isn't that expensive, here.

i totally agree with gia. i really don't believe that i would be paying that price because the product is green--but because it's "designer". and if these companies really cared about helping the most consumers possible become more green, they would find a way to lower the price point. i pay more for my food and toiletries to be green, but only because the price point is reasonable. the green product should not be 5 times its non-green equivalent. i think that most of us can see that green products generally need to be more expensive, but most of the products that i buy are anywhere from 1.25-2.5 times more expensive than their non-green equivalent. when something is 4 or 5 times more expensive, i generally do without or find a used alternative.

another issue with the green products mentioned in the article is that they are all extremely nicely designed. that means that they not only appeal to those with an interest in being green, but also those with an interest in design (many of whom can actually afford these price points). what happens to the binvention when being green is no longer the "it" thing? and how many of those consumers will dispose of a "less stylish" recycling system and replace it with this product?

Oops. What I meant to say was that $59 IS basically the same as £59 when you are talking about buying things (or making things with things you buy, fourth paragraph...)

It is a thingee that holds trash bags and it costs $125..

That's simply the problem. Oxo, Rubbermaid.. somebody will do it better for cheaper..

There are lots of niche products aimed at the "modern" market that I look at and say, yep I can make that myself. Binvention is one of those. Draw it up, sketch it out, send it to a local sheet metal shop. Super simple, but ingenious, object to make.

and as my buddy pointed out to me: "Yes J, but you always forget that you can build it cheaply because you have tools, space, and know how. Other people pay a higher price because they don't have those things. Additionally, you do not need to make a profit from the item in order to support yourself. Most of those clever items have to support an artist.

so let's say that you find a clever widget for $100, and you think you can build it for $20 in parts. It takes you 2 hours. Now, as long as those were 2 enjoyable hours, you've done well for yourself. You've effectively made $40 per hour (not including tools and stuff here...) so, for $80 you can buy the clever item, and also have those 2 hours to spend on something else."

and to that end

FYI, if the binvention is 14 gauge sheet it's less than $15 for the material, $30 a pop to have them cut and bent for a run of 30+. I'd still sell them for $90 all day long. ;-)

But I won't because grocery bags fit in my vintage Lincoln trashbin I rescued from the dump long ago.

I'm one who thinks the biventions is an expensive piece of useless rubbish. So it holds bags, big whoop. Who actually wants to see their trash sitting out in the open? $10 is too much for that thing. But that's not the point. A lot of people here are mentioning that being "green" is just too expensive. Why is that? If the green movement wants to be successful, it has to be economical.

I'm usually not this persnickety, but...AJ Kandy: you.are.dead.wrong. ("Any company trying to flog a useless product would be out of business post-haste"). A quick refresher: humankind existed for the vast majority of its time on earth without electricity, vaccinations, chemical compounds, plastics, television sets, computers, the internet, food additives... you get the idea. But you're probably right: we NEED that stuff.

And as for the recurring question of why green products cost more: it's my understanding that their premium is derived from the fact that they don't externalize costs, and are a more accurate representation of their source materials, and the responsible methods used to bring them to the market. Don't expect Wal-Mart and Exxon to tax themselves for the resources they rip from the earth, or the damage they impart on ecosystems in the process.

P.S. AJ Kandy, i do think most big corporations are "scary" and indeed do try to trick me and everyone else out of our monies. Ever heard of advertising? Ever taken a stroll down the petrochemical aisle of a department store, commonly known as the toy department? Wake up.

And as for the recurring question of why green products cost more: it's my understanding that their premium is derived from the fact that they don't externalize costs, and are a more accurate representation of their source materials, and the responsible methods used to bring them to the market. Don't expect Wal-Mart and Exxon to tax themselves for the resources they rip from the earth, or the damage they impart on ecosystems in the process.

i do think most big corporations are "scary" and indeed do try to trick me and everyone else out of our monies. Ever heard of advertising?

I once tried to look for 'Green' socks via TH, and the ones found were more than 10 times the price of conventional socks. A bit much. Yes they don't extgernalize their costs, and smaller runs prevent efficiency of scale to bring costs down. But yoiks! 10x is bad..

Anyway, my waste management service doesn't require separation of future-goodies , so I use a cardboard paper-box from Kinkos as my recycle bin. It fits neatly under a reused coffee table.

i have to take offense at the tone of this article. perhaps i was unaware when i started reading treehugger that it is only aimed at an upscale green consumer? i am by no means that consumer, my income goes to rent, bills, groceries and toiletries (buying green in those aspects on my low income eats most of my money, but i do it anyway, for my health and the planets health)and if i have a bit of money left over ill rescue something from the local second hand store, a nice cozy sweater or a tshirt far softer than any manufacturer could offer. recently i had a bit of extra money and used it to thrift about 15 canvas totes from the second hand store to carry my groceries, to me, that is far more green than something i dont need taking up space in my already tiny kitchen. as to furniture, many would laugh at my makeshift sofa (a dresser left behind by an old tennant acts as a back, while a spare twin mattress i had at a previous apartment acts as seating. covered in old blankets and pillows it isnt very attractive, but its really quite comfortable and serves its purpose).

i guess my main point would be, at least in the US where i am at, just how many people need something like this to sort their recycle. i live in a very small town, that isnt progressive by any means, and we have a very simple recycle program. cans and other metal recyclables, plastics, glass all go together in the bin, and you place all paper and cardboard recyclables on top. if its a windy pickup day, you can place the papers in a paper grocery bag. in my kitchen i have 2 tupperware bins that my roommate uses as packing boxes whenever she moves (we're young and up to this point have lived the typical young semi nomadic lifestyle) into one goes paper into the other goes everything else and the night before recycle i bin it all up and put it at the curb. this serves me quite well. i am not at all reluctant to pay a high price for a neccessity, or for something that really serves a purpose, but i only have so much income so please forgive me if i turn up my nose at something with little use. i thought one of the greenest things a person could do was to simply buy less?

I understand all of your arguements that green products are expensive compared to regular stuff. But it's the same reason that organic fruit costs more than the presticide-ridden counterparts. The reason is because the organic and green companies are internalizing costs that other companies are externalizing - costs such as the health of their workers and the pollution of air and water.

The price of this recycling thing is high, but it's a luxury item... it's by no means a necessity, like a tote bag or a pair of socks. It's fancy piece of houseware, with fancy design and happens to be in a green material. Obviously if you're the kind of person who builds things themselves and buys at thrift stores, you're not going to buy this thing. The market for this is the same market who buys $5000 Eames chairs. Don't get so upset when Treehugger shows you something that isn't for you. Just be happy that it's green and that it's on the market.

To Icelander- sure you can make 'something' similar, but I question if it is something that has as much quality and aesthetic appeal? If you did put in that level of detail and craftmanship, by the time you were done, how many hours of your work would it have taken? What price do you put on your man-hours? I bet you'd hit $59 pretty quick actually, or, if you lived and worked in the UK, £59 (which is NOT the same).

Let me put it this way: If the time I spent making my knockoff cost me as much as the binvention, I'd be able to afford a binvention.

i have to take offense at the tone of this article.

I was a little offended, too. It came across like "if you can't afford this thing, you're not with the in-crowd," which is the basest form of consumerism there is.

"A quick refresher: humankind existed for the vast majority of its time on earth without electricity, vaccinations, chemical compounds, plastics, television sets, computers, the internet, food additives... you get the idea. But you're probably right: we NEED that stuff."

Unless you want to live like the Unabomber -- or a flea-infested, syphilitic medieval person with a lifespan of 35, yes. We do need most, if not all, of those things. They enable civilization, that is, an elevation of the quality of life for the greatest number of people possible. To argue that they are not necessary is a sweepingly reductionist argument based upon a false moral premise, i.e. "we are a
wicked people and deserve to be punished, and thus we're not allowed to have any nice things."

Would you say humanity was better or worse off without modern virology and epidemiology and the advances in chemistry that allow lifesavingdrugs or treatment regimes to be developed?

"And as for the recurring question of why green products cost more: it'smy understanding that their premium is derived from the fact that theydon't externalize costs [...]"

Yes, granted. The purest green products do that. That said, there's a big gap between 'luxury' green products and accessible ones and you can't substitute one for the other with a bit of wishful thinking. In an ideal economy, a combination of price competition, taxes and incentives would help the market find ways to eliminate 'externalized' byproducts such as waste, emissions, and infrastructure use in the manufacture of a product, while keeping prices more-or-less affordable.

"Don't expect Wal-Mart and Exxon to tax themselves for the resources they rip from the earth, or the damage they impart on ecosystems in the process."

I wasn't going to. But while we're bringing up straw men, I *do* expect the green lobby to be more sensible about the economics of consumer products, and to focus their attention on lobbying for those incentives and taxes I mentioned above - to curb everything from urban sprawl to
companies that 'free ride' on the system, instead of complaining about it.

After all, Interface Carpets is a 'huge corporation' and so is Herman Miller but they've both seen the light and gone green. They do so because it brings them tangible monetary or productivity benefits, not to mention great PR.

Which brings up another topic: Even the worst corporate offenders arepublicly owned. Why don't we put our money where our mouth is, start a mutual fund, and buy up huge chunks of Monsanto, ADM, and Exxon and get them to do what *we* want for a change?

"i do think most big corporations are "scary" and indeed do try to trick me and everyone else out of our monies. Ever heard of advertising? Ever taken a stroll down the petrochemical aisle of a department store, commonly known as the toy department? Wake up."

Did you know that in all probability, most of your friends and
neighbours work for big corporations? Are you afraid of them, too? Do you believe they're trying to trick you? That must be one scary world you live in. Better stay indoors and block out the windows lest a passing ad on the side of a truck "make" you go out and buy something.

Seriously -- you're implying that corporations are something from another planet like alien invaders, when they're started by people who live in your own town...and secondly, you're promulgating the old "Mass Society" idea that people are mindless sheep, who are told to conform,
and thus buy whatever they're told. I reject that as objectively false, and as an elitist statement. I agree that overconsumption is a problem, but it's driven by internal social factors -- competitive consumption between individuals -- and the corporations that supply the products are just following demand. (for more, read the book The Rebel Sell).

You didn't address the point I brought up, of those 10,000 specialist websites, blogs, magazines, TV shows and other media devoted to testing and rating products of all kinds -- I guess they're just put out by Big Brother to foster the illusion of choice, right? The plain fact is that all the power rests in the hands of citizens. We can break a brand
overnight if we choose, even the ones with the deepest pockets. Does the word "Pinto" ring a bell?

I do agree that there's a lot of bad advertising out there, and I'm not down with advertising targeted at children. There really should be stronger laws against it, and people should use the mechanisms at their disposal to bring egregious offenders to heel. I think strong taxes-and-incentives could get the toy industry to move to greener
materials - have you noticed, though, that higher end toy stores that carry all-natural and safe products are still too expensive for the average working parent? Obviously there's some work to do, still.

Finally, as someone who works in marketing, (and I've made this point over and over again) it's NOT about trying to trick people -- if you try to do that you go out of business, because people talk about how bad
your products are and how annoying your customer service is. Marketing is about researching what people need and want, and then providing advice to help create products that really address that need. (Advertising is something else altogether.)

Like science, it can produce the polio vaccine or the atom bomb...it's all down to how you use it. I prefer to work with clients who have a green focus and are sensitive to ethical and environmental issues, personally.

As one of the people who griped about the cost of the MiniHome, I sort of feel compelled to chime in here as well. I think the Binvention, like the MiniHome, is really neat, but Lloyd's arguments are not compelling.

1) The American dollar is not what it used to be...

If that's a problem, don't sell it in the US, or more importantly, don't expect to see a lot of US demand for it at that price. Which leads to:

2) "You can't just do a flat conversion of the cost in the UK of a Binvention to US dollars- things cost more there."

If you choose to make a product in an area with high labor costs, high material costs and/or high taxes, I see no compelling need to support that sort of inane business decision by buying the product while my "dollars are falling through the floor". "Green" does not exclude a product from being subject to the laws of supply and demand.

3) "The Binvention could probably be made in PVC and sold for 20 bucks; in about six months it probably will. Will you be better off, will the craftsmen in the UK, and will the designer?"

Two out of three. Yes, I will be better off, I'll have ninety extra bucks in my pocket, enough to buy two or three more and give them as gifts. No, the craftsmen in the UK will not be better off. Yes, the designer will be better off, if they managed to license the design and are getting a royalty on all those $20 Walmart Binventions that are selling in the US.

4) "We no longer value how it is made, who built it and where our money went, we just care that it cost next to nothing."

Maybe. But some of us just care that out money is spent well. I have no doubt that a Binvention made as an exact copy of the original could sell for $20 and be profitable, if done on a scale that supplies the Walmarts of the world. That Binvention would be indistinguishable from the $110 model. So how is spending $110, or $90 or $70 for one in any way a good idea?

I bought CF's back when they were $20 each, and dammit, I'm still using most of them. The higher cost did eventually pay for itself in energy savings. Ditto for the solar panels that provide 100% of my power. Buying a $110 Binvention never pays itself off...

5) "Recyled aluminum is not the cheapest material around."

No, but it's damn close. That what used to be considered a precious metal is now cheap enough that we consider it disposable is a pretty good indicator that the raw material cost of the Binvention is not the bulk of the cost.

Sorry to be harsh, but I have to agree with the nay-sayers on this one, and say that the arguments made about the cost, while emotionally comforting, are not rhetorically or financially sound.

Such puffery.

Interesting post, thanks Lloyd. In order to assess whether something is expensive or reasonably priced 'for what it is', we must have some point of reference or means of making that judgement. For example, organic food seems expensive in relation to conventionally produced food. The controversial Binthing seems expensive compared to a cardboard box. Ikea, Walmart, cheap flights etc can certainly give us low price comparative benchmarks. I guess when we make the decision to buy something we (often) consider not just the monetary cost but also the 'value' we place on the item and whether that value justifies any cost premium. I value the tangible product attributes of organic food and I quite like the intangible emotional value too, hence I'll pay the extra. If I could afford a custom made sustainable sofa I'd pay the extra for similar reasons. Maybe the controversial Binthing has raised so much comment because we can't find enough value to justify the price - as Elaine said near the top, it's basically 'just a glorified trash can'.

perhaps i was unaware when i started reading treehugger that it is only aimed at an upscale green consumer?

apparently you were. :) come on, one look at an average week's posts gives that away immediately. when did you last see something presented here that a low-income person could afford? (somebody will now quickly point out some item somewhere -- i'm talking about the majority of items.)

i still find it interesting, but that's no longer my demographic. i'm back to reusing and reducing and buying less, where i was as a student. so i build my own binventions, and save my pennies for art, instead of shelling out for spiffy green design. indeed, it is about value; and what's most valuable to me is my time which i do no longer want to invest in making lots of $$ that i can then use to buy spendy green design. the social cost is too high. and i have this choice -- the majority of people in north america cannot afford this type of buying green, period. so i look at it and say "yay, at least it's green", but i don't get really excited about it.

People have a finite ammount of the local currency. (except Bill Gates, but never mind him)

The people get to pick what to spend the money on (after taxes) based on needs & wants.

So, after food, rent, and bus fare, the hypothetical Green consumer gets to decide if $110 is best spent on a Binvention, or two $65 bamboo sweaters, or a whole lot of thrift store shopping expeditions.

It is nice that the clever Binvention is available, but I can't see a lot of people choosing to spend their money that way.

I think what many of the posters are responding to is that not everything "green" is "green." Meaning that technically the Binvention is green: it is made from recycled materials and in uses bags that would otherwise be thrown out. But in reality it's not green: it's another damn piece of crap that took energy to manufacture, package, and ship. If you buy one it will replace whatever existing recycling gear you had that while not as cute, worked just fine. It would be greener of you never to buy it in the first place.

I would like to say that I like the MiniHome and don't think that the price premium is that bad considering the thought and design that went into the product.

But I stand by my statement that the binvention is a rip off. The reasons? I've seen people making these at home for years. It's not innovative. It takes something that people have been doing for ever and sells it morons who are too dim witted to do it themselves from a few old wire coat hangers and ten minutes, or salvaging the old parts from their no longer used IKEA furniture. That's recycling, and much more innovative than the binvention could ever hope to be.

I have to agree with jessilikewhoa, in that this article hit me as kind of offensive in tone. Like her, I am the only support for my household on a tiny buget.

All my furniture are second hand finds, usually free. I live and die by the ReStore and create things as I need them from the odds and ends I find there. I would do these things anyways as I truly believe in reusing and recycling over new purchases, even if given all the money in the world.

I am often horrified by the green premium put on things. I saw leg warmers recently that were made by chopping off the arms of a second hand sweater. No hemming, just ravelling edges, and the price was $70-something, all the while labeled with eco friendly labels. I am glad the gal could sell them to someone that had more money than sense, but it sure wasn't me. I liked the idea (with finished hemmed edges), and just made them myself.

I guess that means I like the ideas put out by some of these upper scale items, but I will never be a customer. I might, however, be a copycat. If I complain, it's because I want environmentally healthy products in my price bracket, too. It shouldn't be a perogative of just the upper income brackets.

When you wonder "why do green products cost more," here's a data point: at my local mega-grocery, the organic isle sells products for roughly 50% more than a local organic-only mini-grocery. Why? I can only assume it's because marketing and pricing specialists know that people who buy organic at the grocery don't shop on price (at least a lot of them, because I see plenty of people in that isle buying the stuff). Whole Food here is so packed you can barely squeeze in the door. Their products are very very good, but very very expensive. As long as green consumers are typically yuppies, this will continue.