Very well said. I would argue that we're far less clever that we think we are, given the environment cost of "stuff" almost always exceeds its environmental payback. The real test of cleverness will come when the total cost of environmental remediation is built into the product and the manufacturer held fully accountable.
So for example, if you're making solar panels, then the cost per-panel needs to include re-purifying those thousands of gallons of polluted water-per-panel; re-seeding moses, shrubs, and trees for the thousands of pounds of excavated land at the mining site (per-panel); cleaning evaporated metals and pollutants from hundreds of thousands of cubic-feet of air-per-panel; housing / cloning / breeding and re-introducing
all species that will be displaced / starve / killed through the entire life-cycle at all mining and operating sites (pro-rated-per-panel). You also need to pay staff to maintain that remediation process and quality-check it until it's back-to-square-one.
Yes - most of today's products are 100%-subsidized by the environment and would cost many orders of magnitude more under such a system. Therefore, when the costs are built in, many processes would be unacceptable from the get-go and much harder more clever approached would be needed.
Take something else - rain-water collection combined with gravity fed drip irrigating to grow tomato vines and gourdes in arid "dead" soil. In this scenario, the environment benefit might actually be net-positive.
So the real cleverness is when optimizing all angles of production, including 100% remediation if needed, are factored in.