> By this logic, corporate pressure to eliminate environmental regulations is "good" because they are "ineffective programs".
Environmental regulations prevent a harm. A dollar value can be attached to the harm, the cost to compensate victims and clean up the damage. If a company is polluting but not providing enough value to compensate for that pollution then they're a parasite and the state does not benefit from avoiding environmental regulations in order to attract them.
In practice not polluting is almost always more cost effective than polluting and then cleaning it up afterwards, so states that have environmental regulations will out compete states that allow pollution and then have taxes high enough to recover the cost of pollution from local companies.
If that wasn't the case then it wouldn't actually be a problem. Suppose someone invented a way of converting CO2 + H2O + sunlight into hydrocarbons that was so efficient it put all the oil companies out of business. Now everyone is still emitting carbon, and increasing carbon would still cause climate change, but recovering the carbon using that process would be more cost effective than alternatives that don't emit carbon to begin with. Which would make doing that a completely reasonable thing to do.
The problem case is when the state is externalizing its costs, e.g. West Virginia burns coal and the pollution spreads to many other states. Those are the cases where national regulations (or international treaties) are necessary. Not because the state is allowing a company to externalize costs, since it has no incentive to do that if the state is the one paying the full cost of that. But instead because the state itself is externalizing costs and that requires some external force to prevent it, equivalent to the need for the state to prevent the company.