It's not vibes if you use numbers. Have the first 10 kWh be free, the next 100 are charged at $0.10/hr, the next 1000 at $0.20/hr and go up from there. (Whatever numbers actually make sense.) If the factory only uses a house's worth of electricity, they pay the same rate. If a house uses a factory's worth of electricity, they also pay the same rate as the factory would.

▲

appreciatorBus 19 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the factory exists to serve 10,000 houses?

To be clear, I think you’ve got the right direction – free stuff for humans up to a point and then market rate for everyone/everything after that. I just think it’s silly to pretend that companies are polluting for shits and giggles. They’re polluting for us.

I think that pricing pollution is the right way to go, I just know that the outcome isn’t going to be some magical world where companies pay for pollution but consumer don’t. The only way it works is that the costs get passed on and the consumer pays.

▲

bix6 18 hours ago | parent [-]

They’re not polluting for us they are polluting to make money for shareholders. People buying stuff is just a necessary step (sometimes) to make that happen.

▲

appreciatorBus 9 hours ago | parent [-]

A nonprofit, co-op, or government entity, serving the same customer the same product would produce an identical amount of pollution as the for-profit factory.

▲

bix6 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Not true. The non profit might add a screen to catch pollution before it hits the waterway.

	▲	appreciatorBus 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure they might do that, just as a for profit company might. The decision by either would face the same trade off - an increase in costs that their customers/patrons may not care about or be willing to pay for. The answer for both is the same - price externalities so that the decision to pollute less is economic rather than moral.