People need to realize that no law is going to please everyone, and writing one that is not ambiguous and perfectly clear is harder than most people think. As a result, to get across the nuances of the intent, and try to clarify the numerous ways to interpret it, it can become complex. That doesn't make it wrong or right, it's somewhat a result of the lawyers we have and the special interests various groups have to bend the law to their advantage.
Hopefully, we can all agree that polluting our air and water is not a good thing. What this administration is pushing, though, appears to be a much less restrictive cost-benefit factor. Example...lead in water is not good, but how much is okay? The problem is, as research continues, we find that what we thought was okay, now isn't. So, if it cost millions to save a few people from it, is that cost worth it to society? That's the big question that this administration is trying to equate - put a cost on it, and then, you have the moral and maybe legal problem of is it worth it to injure someone for someone else's profits? How much is health and life worth?
Another example...there is quite strong evidence that fracking is causing numerous earthquakes, some of which are causing damage not counting the subsistence of the land created by extracting that oil. Some states have moved to limit the use of that technique. Should the extraction of that extra gas and oil be worth it to cause damage to life and property? Is the cost of not doing it worth the benefit? These can be tough decisions...this administration appears to be shifting from conservatism to optimism...if it makes money, it must be good. The little guy is likely to get left on the short end of the stick.
The problem, as I see it, is it takes years and decades to build up the 'defenses, so to speak' and maybe days to delete them, often, with little discussion on the ramifications. With the large number of billionaires in the cabinet, the guidance does not seem to be in the court of the little guy. Even some of the oil companies are now hedging their bets that fossil fuels and CO2 is causing problems, and they're diversifying into other things. Denying it as even a possibility is fraught with potential problems, and looking for alternatives that are sustainable has advantages for all should at least be kept in the thinking process. There's enough solar in just a portion of the southwest of the USA such that if there were a good distribution system and storage, we'd not need to use any fossil fuels for heating and electrical use at all in this country. Not researching and supporting alternative energy sources is foolish. There's enough uranium dissolved in the oceans to provide reliable nuclear for 10,000 years (and maybe a few centuries in known land mines), but little research has been done on safe nuclear reactors that are safe and reliable. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is problematic. Just look at the ice sheet in Antarctica - big chunks breaking off. The last one about the size of Delaware, and significant cracks in other sections. The Arctic, navigable now for a good portion of the year. The water coming off the glaciers in Greenland is easily detected and increasing rapidly. But, global warming doesn't exist.