i guess the common thread is that humans suck.
Certainly if the human population was gone, or cut in half, there would be less pressure on the environment and the natural resources that support us, and there wouldn't be as many economic/environmental conflicts.
Even if we stopped climate change dead in its tracks, do you really think that, to use one of your examples, that whales would suddenly be safe and the economy of watching them would boom? Human overpopulation pressures have them on the ropes even without the carbon issue.
You can attribute anything you want to environmental degradation. Just remember that the food you eat comes from the ground, ground that once supported bison instead of John Deere tractors.
Your example of deforestation in the Amazon... well, there is not many people crying for the loss of the eastern hardwood ecosystems, at least not people that are willing to do anything about it. Your driveway, for example. Or your patio. They could be ripped out and restored to ecological integrity. The environment, like politics, is local.
But logging the Amazon is in part due to american environmentalists.
Here is why: The north american temperate forests are highly adapted to disturbance, primarily fire. If a stand is lost to fire or logging, natural regeneration will occur in most cases, and the system restores itself, given enough time and protection. (clearcutting is no longer practiced on public lands, but that is another side issue) Most harvest of trees at present is of third or fourth generation of forests since the Europeans took over their management, and harvests are via thinning silivicultural systems.
Meanwhile, the population grows. Demand for wood increases. Enter well intentioned people that see logging as bad for the environment. They stop logging, using the court system to stall almost all harvest in the 90's until the infrastructure is lost to process wood. Western small mill towns disintegrate.
The demand for wood remains. So because of the NIMBY mentality of americans, the demand for wood is exported. To ecosystems that are not adapted to disturbance. Such as the rain forests of the equator, and the boreal forests of canada. Who do not have laws that are anywhere near as stringent, and even if they were, the forestry is not as sustainable as temperate forests.
So citing the horrible rape of the amazon is a little weak, as its roots are clearly in the Americans exporting the demand for lumber products to fragile systems, as they "protect" their own forested ecosystems that are more capable of agro-forestry than anywhere else in the world. (well, New Zealand is close) And using slash-and-burn to create cattle grazing in central america can be linked back to corn being used for ethanol instead of feed in Iowa, and the demand for McDonald hamburgers.
Your Screwing up environment not so great for economy, studies find has a corollary... Protecting your own environment often leads to trashing of someone else's.
Okay, i am just posting some counterpoint thoughts. But posting things in other people's words, such as the stupendous revelation that Detroit would be in better shape as would the environment if they produced cars with better gas mileage is a bit disingenious. Screwing up the environment for profit isn't exactly a new or unusual phenomenon. One would be hard pressed to find very many human activities that do not have an impact upon the environment in one form or another. And if they don't, they probably don't contribute to food, shelter, or clothing and thus are probably essentially superfluous to any real meaningful contribution to the human endeavor anyway... such as lawyers or wall street thieves trading paper with each other. :)
(no need for a reply, i am just responding to your flippant use of "Grist" magazine as your mouthpiece)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
