Does it? Really? I don't think so. It isn't "government regulaton" that is driving my desire to replace incandescent light bulbs with LEDs -- it's the long-term cost savings and the elimination of bulb-changing hassles. I shun CFLs because they represent a hazard to the environment I live in, so out they go. My shift is driven by market forces, not by rules enforced with the working end of a gun.
What the new proposed law does, as I see it, is slow down the rate of rule-making to something approaching sanity. The new rules and regulations are coming so fast and furiously that keeping up with them is a full-time job in and of itself.
SCIENCE is all about showing your work, and having others verify that the work is accurate. When the raw data is labelled "proprietary" or the analysis methods "trade secrets", yet the summary of that data/analysis is presented as justification to force changes on people, that's not a good use of science. Indeed, it's bad government.
To add to the problem of climate "science", there is quite a bit of elitism applied to the judgements of articles -- if you aren't a member of the "club" you are not allowed to play. This has led to some very interesting criticism of contrary work on non-scientific grounds. That's what feeds my skepticism of the "crisis". When a non-environmentalist criticism of the models used to "measure climate change" (remember when the mantra was "measure global warming"?) leads to a knee-jerk "he doesn't know what he's talking about," I cringe.
I personally witnessed what open, transparent science can do. The clean-up of Lake Michigan was based on transparent science, and carefully-considered enforcement against those who polluted the waters. No esoteric regulations, just prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt science. Effective.
If you think things should change, find a way -- other than regulation or other use of violence -- to move people to less harmful activities. Make it part of their self-interest to do so. You don't need government to make a difference.