Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.
IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.
A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.
A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".
There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.
The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.
The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.
That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.
In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect
That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.
Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.
Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.