A new study done on behalf of the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council is summarized as follows:

The role of radical activists and advocates of green technology has long been dismissed as out of tune with rational economic progress. Yet in practice they have often been a key source of ideas that have seeded new industries in areas like food production, housing and energy. Rather than dismissing such activists and their niche ideas as hopelessly idealistic, mainstream business and policy makers should recognise that they present a diversity of options for sustainability and learn from them.

Word.

Put it on the shelf beside the classic from MIT’s Stephen Myer, "The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulation" (PDF), summarized as follows:

Focusing on a number of different industries, using a variety of economic indicators, and covering different time periods these studies find that neither national nor state economic performance has been significantly or systematically affected by environmental regulation.

Firms that cannot compete without dumping some of their costs on the environment (and thereby compel the public to subsidize their operation) were never really competitive in the true sense of the term. But the loss of such companies is ultimately compensated for by new start up companies that use more innovative technologies.

I say again: word.

There you have it: Wild-eyed activists and futurists are an enduring source of competitive innovations for mainstream companies, and environmental regulations not only do not harm but may strengthen economies.

Two anti-environmental talking points, exposed as horseshit.