>>1042734>Or are they doing labor vouchers + ecological ration points.
No, that's a half-baked idea that has been floated in these threads.
I believe labor-time accounting already takes in ecological constraints to some extent, whether the planners are aware of that or not. So first, we should try to get an awareness of how much normal labor-time accounting already does before we add in modifications. Suppose there are two processes for producing a thing:
-process 1, which requires little labor and pollutes a lot
-process 2, which is a labor-intensive green process
and both processes are in use. There is some regulatory constraint on how much of these polluting processes we can use. The labor-time cost calculation for the thing is then just the aggregated cost of these two processes, which then gets divided equally among the units produced for a unit's equilibrium price. Suppose we want to increase the total output of these things and because of the pollution regulations we only increase the units made by process 2, it follows from this that the equilibrium price is raised.
Pollution will be felt in one way or another. I mean, why do we pollute at all, just for the love of pollution? No, we pollute to save labor. We can look at the amount of pollution we have decided to allow and treat it as an input in planning to be used in a way to save as much labor as possible. It's not necessary to add a special process to reflect this in some way in the prices consumers face.