They aren't reluctant, but you have to speak their language. You may be eager to see a government agency placing limits on businesses, but that won't go over well at all.

A better approach is to speak in terms of paying for what you damage. The economy matters, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet... but you pay for anything you break.

So you end up charging a price, preferably to be paid to those who are affected, and the market responds by cutting pollution. It's almost like fine or cap-and-trade, but without the arbitrary limit that would cause offense. The result may even be better, since you won't always end up exactly at the limit.

Tainting and spoiling are usually bad to the conservative mindset, but watch out for property rights. You get to mess up your own stuff. If you bought it and you own it, you can ruin it. Arguing for restrictions that infringe on a person's property won't get you very far at all.