This affirms the assumption that if nations restrict their natural resource use, they restrict their primary source of wealth. This supports the idea that excessive restrictions would make it difficult to adopt and maintain environmental policies.

The columnist never mentions technology, nor social programs. Without some connection to natural resources and the environment, this is totally irrelevant.

We don’t care about ecological disasters. We’re talking about the ecological damage governments can control through policy, so this isn't relevant.

We have no idea what that compromise would look like, nor do we know what policies environmentalists advocated for. And even if we did, it would only weaken the argument to say that greater economic growth would harm the environment.

The causal relationship we’re interested in is: fewer restrictions allow for more wealth allows for more environmental protections. Saying that wealth increases when countries demonstrate concern for ecosystems is irrelevant without more detail.