I'm a libertarian and an environmentalist. Pollution is harming other people just as clearly and directly as assault, rape or murder and so regulations against that harm still fit naturally and comfortably within even fairly extreme or hardline libertarian frameworks.
A law that says "You can't spray mace in someone's face" and a law that says "You can't spray <whatever other harmful chemical> in <the air that will eventually hit people's faces>" are ideologically the same.
Perhaps you meant it's a fascist, statist or autocratic dream? The people with power (economic, political, social) get to benefit while the people without power get harmed.
Also a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
And in many states they are appointed by republicans. Companies already venue shop to cases to get the judge they want. Why won't this continue to happen?
> a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
It's not for the companies because while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. The longer they can delay, the better for them.
> while its bogged down, its business-as-usual.
Uncertainty is bad for business.
Only some kinds, while other kinds are great for business. For example, the tabacco industry very deliberately created uncertainty about the links between smoking and lung cancer for years and years because it meant in the meantime they could continue business as usual.