[ty6853]

Yes, but this is the kind of thing Kaczynski wrote about in his manifesto. If you don't produce the product using the externality heavy process that reduces the cost, someone else will, and put you out of business. The whole economic system demands it, it is unavoidable. USA mostly solves this by just offloading the problem onto China.

That is why some people argue for a more capitalist system where the referee of industry job is to make sure businesses pay for externalities, enabling free trade rather than just shitting on the next guy.

[akudha]

On one hand, it feels pointless for someone like me to be environmentally conscious - no matter how hard I try, I won't be able to pollute even one millionth of pollution that people like Zuck are going to cause. But I am living on this planet too, so it is my responsibility too, to be environmentally conscious (no matter how little practical effect it has).

In the end though, the only thing we can control (to some extent) is our own consumption...

[amanaplanacanal]

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much political support in pricing externalities into the cost of products, even though that would be the most efficient "free market" way to solve the problem.

[ty6853]

I'm not sure you would even need political support. The courts would just have to uphold the property rights of the polluted, and your right to exercise derivatives on your property i.e. sell a a pollution easement on your property.

[amanaplanacanal]

I agree that it should be that way.

[HDThoreaun]

Neutralizing externalities is an essential part of the capitalist system. Markets with heavy externalities are not free markets.