That is so obviously untrue that it's hard to accept the statement as good faith. Successful litigation requires that the plaintiff be able to prove not only that harm occurred but that it was directly and exclusively the fault of the defendant (which quite notably does not work for diffuse/delayed/complex environmental harms), against a corporate legal team that often has more information, experience, funding, and patience. Even then justice often comes too late. Such an approach would also result in a court system so large that it would be more burdensome (and subject to corruption) than even the worst regulators today.

Litigation has never been, and will never be, an adequate substitute for judicious regulation. Many harms are very real, and serious, and well recognized as both, without being litigable. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying externalities should just be ignored in the name of profit.

Then the justice system needs to be flooded with litigation to become some kind of regulatory body? Why introduce more layers into something already pretty complex such a regulation? Instead of an elected government it'd be another bureaucracy: the justice system, who takes action against bad actors?

That's a complete fantasy, litigation is expensive, it should be reserved to exceptional cases not to dictate basic rules for society...

Someone hasn't watched Fight Club, it seems. =)

Sometimes damage claims are just the cost of doing business.