The current money game we play does not provide for sustainability as well as it could.  Yes, sustainability can be profitable in today's money game, but we can do better, as any technique used in today's monetary system will translate to the Registry as well..   In the Registry, the is addressed by making the use of a scarce commodity a deterrant in the transactions.

Anyone can vote toward a commodity to be deemed a scarce resource. 

Let R = The number of individuals in the registry who think this resource is scarce / number of members of the registry

Cost = Cost / R

Where Cost = what the cost would have been to the purchaser if R = 0.

What value should R be for any particular category?  People would need to determine and agree that a particular implementation of a utility in that category is not sustainable anymore.  Make the R factor sufficient enough to make that implementation slightly more expensive than an alternative technology, that takes more effort by humanity.

Who sets this R factor?  It could be anybody really, just so long as the agreed upon laws of the members of the registry for how to determine a particular scarcity is defined.  All the system needs as input to determine the factor a reference to the utility deemed scarce and the utility deemed to be the accepted alternative implementation.

As/if the cost of the alternative implementation gets lower as the process to create it becomes more automated, the R factor could be automatically adjusted by the system until the alternative solution is naturally more abundant and therefore cheaper than the original.