"Environmental destruction happens because government restricts property rights and creates commons which belong to no one."
Under that scheme, who would have the property rights for the atmosphere? I rather like living in a place where atmospheric pollution (both domestic and commercial) is tightly controlled by regulations. We tried the alternative years ago and it was a disaster on many fronts.
It should be possible to sue air polluters for putting toxins on your property (your land or your body.) Pollution is usually a problem of trespass and enforcement of property rights could solve it.
Regulations are kind of a roundabout way to solve the problem. You want the polluter to be concerned about affecting its neighbors, not just to meet (or help set) some arbitrary government standard.
It should be possible to sue air polluters for putting
toxins on your property
Not possible. For example, diesel exhaust and wood smoke both contain carcinogenic submicron particulate matter pollution. It's not possible to sue every truck driver and person with a campfire who is within several miles of one's home. This is why we need regulations like burn bans and diesel engine emission regulations.
In practice, you'd focus on factories, powerplants, the road owners, auto-makers, etc. This is similar to how regulations already work. The regulators tend to ignore the rogue backyard barbecuer and instead focus on the big polluters.
Also, aggregation techniques could be used for both defendants (polluters) and plaintiffs (landowners and other people being poisoned.)
Under that scheme, who would have the property rights for the atmosphere? I rather like living in a place where atmospheric pollution (both domestic and commercial) is tightly controlled by regulations. We tried the alternative years ago and it was a disaster on many fronts.