Probably true, or perhaps:

Wherever regulators have not been carefully selected and sufficiently empowered.

Some might say that the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Well that's a nitpicking argument which depends on your definitions. From what i understand, what you call "communism" i call "State capitalism" and what you call "democratic socialism" i call "liberal capitalism". Under all these systems, there's privileges: people who have more and people who have less, while communism is usually defined as a stateless/classless society (including by marxists).

> Wouldn't it be more accurate to just say: where industrial humans are or have been?

Indeed! Yet this formula ignores the ties between the two concepts. Industrialization and capitalism grew hand in hand with extractivism and colonization starting in the 16th century. Without the industry to build boats to exploit the overseas, capitalism could not exist: yet without massive accumulation of wealth, industry as we know it could not be created.

This is not to say pollution is impossible without capitalism. But capitalism as a social structure incentivizes not to care because there's no (immediate) profit involved in respecting your environment, and because there will always be more areas to exploit and pollute: our overlords are now openly talking of colonizing Mars once they're done fucking things up over here!

If you have intellectual curiosity for critiques of industrial capitalism, i strongly recommend the "End: Civ" documentary.