The original poster is just expressing a knee-jerk assumption that it’ll be assumed to be ecologically bad and outlawed for that, while simultaneously expressin

The original poster is just expressing a knee-jerk assumption that it’ll be assumed to be ecologically bad and outlawed for that, while simultaneously expressing that they don’t believe that reasoning when applied to other things that are already prohibited on those grounds. In other words, they’re not expressing an honest opinion with the statement, they’re signaling their belief in a worldview that assumes environmental regulation has ulterior motives.