An element of ideology (the right to pollute versus the right to breathe)

One of the goals of this blog is to enumerate as completely as possible the differing principles which underlie the differences in political worldviews. In more or less random order, I shall attempt to capture as many of these fundamental sources of disagreement as I can.

Every economics student eventually encounters the Coase Theorem as one possible solution to the problem of externalities. (In layman's terms, an externality is something that someone else does that affects YOU, like pollution).

The Coase Theorem says that the "economically efficient" (that phrase again) outcome to a pollution problem can be reached if "property rights to pollute" can be bought and sold (and enforced).

That is, the people of the town might start with the "right" to breathe clean air, but they'd be willing to accept a certain amount of pollution in exchange for a $10,000 cash payment each, every year. If a factory owner is willing to make that payment, he can pollute (otherwise, the Environment Ministry swoops in and shuts him down).

Alternatively, the factory might start out with the "right" to pollute, but the people of the town would be willing to pay $1million to have the plant shut down. If that is more than the profits the factory owner makes, he'll take that offer and shut down the plant.

One of the "elements of ideology", then, is: "should the factory owner start with a 'right' to pollute, or should people with lungs start with a 'right to clean air'"?

To an environmentalist, this one is a no brainer.