Making any industry responsible for the damage it does is a double-edged sword. While it dissuades a lot of needless damage, it also presents a higher cost for the products it produces. It is entirely possible that lower energy cost may outweigh the cost to the government for cleaning up after the industry, which doesn't necessarily present the same cost to the people, and may even provide additional employment when that is desired.

Once you shed the misconception that a currency-issuing government requires "revenue" to spend on the public purpose the choice becomes less clear-cut. In either case, the government should enforce whatever regulations, or provide new ones, required to end the pollution going forward, whether it wants to fund that cost or not. There is far too much at stake and the cost going forward is going to be far too high to allow continued adherence to antiquated gold standard thinking and processes.