That would be wonderful. But it's harder than you think.

For regulations that have low cost and high benefit, the costs are often borne by few people, but the benefits are spread among many. Those who bear the costs scream loudly; those who reap the benefits may be mildly grateful. And those who bear the costs try very hard to make this regulation look like it is high-cost and low-benefit.

And the same is true in reverse for regulations that are high-cost and low-benefit. Those who receive the benefit try very hard (and very loudly) to make it seem that the regulation is low-cost and high-benefit.

This can make it hard to determine which kind of regulation is which, even if you genuinely want to. But regulations are political, and politicians care about votes, not necessarily about costs and benefits. As long as the narrow interests care deeply (and vote accordingly), the politicians are not likely to care about the wider interests.

That takes care of all the low hanging fruit, then the real work begins. High cost and high benefit regulations are where it starts to get significantly more difficult to find the right balance. I would argue that if this balance doesn't at least lean towards the progress of long term environmental goals, then it is the wrong balance.

To those pointing out problems with this position I’d say. The real issue is that no politicians even attempt to take this position. We lack a worthwhile Conservative party.