It's not true, of course, as I've argued before. Now David Roberts has compiled an interesting list that makes the same point more broadly by refuting the negative proposition: according to several separate studies, screwing up the environment costs more than taking care of it.
Not almost: the environment is the framework that allows an economic system to exist. Damage to the environment leads inescapably to damage to the economy.
One thing they all have in common: an environment-degrading practice often defended as necessary to economic health is revealed, upon closer inspection, to be uneconomic. I wonder how many other allegedly economic environment-degrading practices would also be revealed uneconomic if examined with a fresh eye?
It’s almost like the economy is embedded in an environment, and degrading the latter ultimately degrades the former.