One common concern about strong environmental regulations is that they will detract from one area's “business climate,” limiting or driving away economic growth. Ironically, although the usual assumption is that businesses focus more narrowly on economic factors than do persons holding environmental concerns, it appears that little if any systematic attention has been devoted to the logic or the facts behind such “business climate” claims. The connections have generally beenassumed, not demonstrated. Systematic, national‐level ratings of state “business climates” have now been available for more than a decade. Using the upper midwest state of Wisconsin as a reference point, this paper examines the predictive validity of three of the best‐known ratings. On average, “good” business climate ratings actually predictedworseeconomic outcomes; the states named as having “bad” business climates actually hadbettereconomic performance (growth in jobs and incomes) over subsequent 5‐ and 10‐year periods. The findings are particularly clear with respect to incomes: The low‐ranked states experienced $585 to $1100 more growth in per capita income for the 5‐year period following each of the three rankings than did the top‐ranked states, and the income benefits associated with “bad” business climate ratings actually increased over time.