Although trade-offs in environmental decision-making are inevitable, few studies have examined how values and other psychological constructs inform and predict such decisions. Sacred values--which involve viewing certain principles as non-reducible and non-fungible--may be especially relevant in this context. Participants are presented with 3 different scenarios for a development project that causes environmental harm followed by either a taboo, tragic, or a taboo tradeoff with the addition of an offset. Tragic tradeoffs pit two sacred values against one another (economic development in poor countries and environmental harm), taboo trade offs pit secular values (money and profits) against a sacred value (environmental harm), and taboo tradeoff scenarios with an offset still violate sacred values, but attempt to make up for it with a post-hoc offset (such as a carbon or biodiversity offset). We examine these tradeoffs in two different scenarios; one that violates the sacred value of protecting the planet from climate change due to increased carbon emissions and one that violates the preservation of biodiversity. Results indicate that higher cognitions associated with sacred values and moral inclusion of nature reduce endorsement for plans that violate nature, while consequentialist reasoning increases endorsement for plans, regardless of tradeoff type. Taboo tradeoffs are endorsed significantly less than those with an offset or those that help surrounding communities (tragic tradeoffs). However, there was only a significant difference between the offsetting and tragic conditions when biodiversity loss would occur, indicating that carbon release is less sacralized than plant and animal species loss.