The original comment was talking about cleanup costs. You realistically can not clean up shed microplastics. A fleece jacket sheds millions of them every wash as well as just wearing it. How are you meant to collect all of those microplastics that just blew off in to the air.

So just a blanket "Charge everything based on it's cleanup costs" doesn't work.

Same way you do asbestos remediation. Enclose the area, filter the air, create a clean room around the entire area.

Maybe in the future you laser-atomize every spec that floats past the actor inside an 8ft cube. Who knows?

I don't think it'd be practical to switch overnight - much of our societal infrastructure needs re-engineering for sustainability which will take time - perhaps a gradually increasing percentage of externalized costs can be integrated over time. It'd be real progress toward a Venus Project style resource based economy.

> $100M is certainly an overestimation and some types of pollution are more solvable than others. In general I think it's important for price tags to communicate the full price of an item

In theory, I agree with you, but trying to internalize these cost is itself extremely costly. That's why the criticism about econ-101 level reasoning: it's a convincing idea in theory that isn't tractable at all in practice and can only end up with a bureaucratic nightmare.

The EU has many such rules that are designed around economics first principle like that, in order to build an “efficient market”, and they are all extremely burdensome and at the same time ineffective (see EU-ETS, the single Electricity market, CBAM, etc.)

In the realm of policies, tractability is always preferable to theoretical elegance.