[rbetts]

I'm unaware of ways to prevent abuse of the environment by corporations other than regulation. Do you have some evidence or documentation that these standards are applied differently to Space-X than other similar companies? Can you show some paper trail that the submission wasn't processed in good faith?

[somenameforme]

The reason toxic dumping is illegal is not because of the EPA or whatever but because there are laws against it. Laws are how you prevent specific abuses, without regulations. Of course in some cases you want a regulatory agency because actions or violations may need to change quickly and/or respond to emerging situations in a dynamic fashion, but there's at least a solution.

As for SpaceX, you're asking me to prove a negative which is impossible. But feel free to find a single-counter example to what I'm saying, as that would completely disprove it. The FAA suddenly decided to impose a 2 month delay to Starship on its 5th launch which was in no way fundamentally different than the priors besides a new splashdown location, and add a bunch of new 'concerns.' In another case the EPA came after SpaceX for "unpermitted discharges" of... oxygen.

And all of these new issues coincided exactly with the timing of the previous political administration defacto naming him an enemy of the state. There was nothing of a comparable scale in the past. Heck they even had a return-to-flight after a major mishap and mishap investigation that took less time than it took for the previous administration's FAA to determine if a shark might get hit by a rocket landing in the ocean...