In the ozone case, it's not fair to say the environmental goals were thwarted. Basically the Montreal Protocol gave most environmentalists everything they wanted. And it wasn't purely about helping first-world businesses. While it was clearly a boon for HCFC makers, there are other chemicals subject to bans that clearly did hurt other businesses.

A better example of capture where the environmental goals got thwarted was the early acid-rain regulations of the 1970s. Rather than set standards for maximum SO2 emissions from all plants (the rational environmental move), due to coal industry pressure what we got was this: all NEW plants had to install costly SO2 scrubbers, all OLD plants were grandfathered as-is.

The important issue is that coal in the newer mining areas in the west (Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc) have very low sulfur to begin with. You could meet moderate emissions limits without any control technology there. In the East, you had to build very costly scrubbing systems.

The rational response would have been shifting to low sulfur coal from the West, and building new plants there as old Eastern plants wore out.

Instead, in 1973 we got a system where there was no incentive to use low-sulfur coal -- you had to spend the $$$ on a scrubber anyway -- and no reason at all for old plants to reduce emissions. The bill totally was about favoring mining interests in WV, PA, and OH, with almost nothing done about acid rain.

Now, this got fixed in 1990. That 1973 dirty deal was so infamous, and the problem so obvious, that in 1990 we switched to a system of setting an overall limit on SO2 emissions and let power plant owners meet it however they liked (including trading emissions amongst each other). The result since then has been a massive switch to low sulfur coal; even plants in Georgia now get their coal from Wyoming. And emissions have indeed come down dramatically.