To be clear I'm very not in favor, but the steelman version of the argument is that environmental regulations are well meaning but draw the line at being too restrictive rather than balancing clean air and water with the reality that human activity produces some unnatural byproducts and banning them entirely only works if there's no human activity. You don't want unbreathable air, but the vast majority of human activities and energy production produces some air pollution so you can't reasonably demand air that meets depopulated Earth standards.

That argument is bullshit though because the EPA administrator is saying things like "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion...". That's not the speech of a well meaning person trying to find the right balance between environmental protection and human activity.