No, it's not. It's pretty much what regulation is for.

CFCs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Asbestos:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law

Lead paint:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-based_paint_in_the_Unit...

Leaded gasoline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Phaseout_and_ba...

We knew asbestos was bad since the 1890s and it wasnt regulated until 1967, lead was known to be bad since the mid 1800s while lead paint wasnt banned until 1978 and leaded gas wasnt banned until 2000, lead paint and pipes are still plentiful across the US. Cigarettes were known to be harmful since the 1890s, and the government didnt do anything about it until 1964.

Regulation can be successful, but at best its slow and incremental, and in the long term corporations will weaken and subvert them. Just having a system which incentivizes good behavior in the first place would be better than trying to regulate bad systems

Regulations are inherently a system that incentivizes good behavior. That's their entire purpose!

Regulations are an attempt to correct for bad incentives.

The idea that you cant is precisely the defeatist attitude some of your industrial overlords were hoping for.

what they really dont want is for us to consider alternative systems

Yea its easy to say that and then you end up with Love Canal and quack doctors injecting people with bleach to cure their cancer. People do things. Laws and morals stop them from doing bad things. Pray your country doesnt have many people no morals.