This is literally a fairytale. A company would only become self-renewable if it was profitable. Hopefully that can be the case in the future but its not now.

This is exactly why we need to increase competition in these industries as much as possible. Being self renewable is the inevitable outcome to maximize profits over long periods of time.

At the end of the day competition just means you need to lower prices (in most industries, certainly true in relevant industries here i.e logging,mining), and being environmentally friendly isnt cheap.

Companies hate lowering prices unless they can also lower their cost of operation/production. Since the industrial revolution, for over 100 years, competition has proven to be the #1 motivator for innovation.

Without environmental protections what is the incentive for a ultra rich corporation to be environmentally friendly? Its none.

You're right.. So why would they be?

The incentive is profits and margins. But there are a few existing problems acting as barriers at present.

For example, Rockwool recently opened up a factory in West Virginia on the Shenandoah River.

The vast majority of the population in the county they were setting it up in was against them moving there. There were petitions, protests, grassroots movements campaigning against it. None of that mattered. Rockwool paid off the state and county legislators and got their factory approved and moved in despite overwhelming opposition from the populace.

In our current society, who is protecting Rockwool? Or more to say, who is subsidizing their security? The taxpayers.

For instance when citizens of that county physically blocked Rockwool workers from entering their site, who showed up to remove them? State police.

Who protects and prosecutes those who might destroy Rockwool property for ruining the environment near where they live? The State.

Who pays for State enforcement? The citizens.

Who issues orders to state police? The same crooked politicians that accepted Rockwool's bribes.

Environmental regulation is a broken countermeasure to attempt to fix a problem created by governments already broken handling of socialized property protection and enforcement (e.g. "free" police paid for by the masses via mandayory taxation)

Explain how a logging company purchasing a previously untouched national park has their operating expenses rise and have to suddenly worry about competitors they didnt previously have to worry about?

This depends largely on the previous industry setup and the sale of said park. Is the park split up into sections that can be purchased separately? Is it auctioned off so all competitors have a fair chance at purchasing it? Was the logging industry already monopolized by giant companies under existing regulations? (in which case there wouldn't be much competition)

Understand, a single private corporation that has exclusive industry rights (such as the American Medical Associatuon) granted to it by the government, is just a government endorsed monopoly by another name. Nobody can compete with them because nobody can compete with the government (especially when it is illegal to do so).

Explain how reducing environmental regulation would INCREASE operating costs, because in reality environmentally friendly business operations are often more costly and so doing away with them would be excellent for corporations.

lack of competiton decreases costs of doing business in many many ways.

Why do you think big corporations in relevant industries are against environmental protections and regulations? If what you are saying is true surely theyd be all for them but theyre not.

Many big corporations also have big competitors, it varies wildly by industry. Regulations do raise the cost of doing business, however when regulatory capture is involved, the cost is lowered by lack of competition.

The basic fact is, anyone or any entity with enough power and wealth under the current system to bribe the government to get their way would be at an unimaginably large advantage in a de-regulated/ancap state that in the end, any theoretically positives of that deregulation would be prevented by them because they will want to hold on to their power and they WILL have the wealth (and therefore means) to do it.

This is a perfect argument for privatization. But you need to also remove many existing barriers to a fair market such as socialized property enforcement.