Is Causing Deliberate Environmental Damage, to Boost Profits a Form of 'Aggression'?

Much of my ancient scientific 'career' was spent agonising about the concept of 'aggression'. I published hundreds of articles on the topic and spent decades helping to edit the International journal, Aggressive Behavior. A very concise version of my 'insights' on aggression follows:- 1) It has to, at least, cause potential damage to other organisms; 2) That damage has to be 'deliberate', rather than accidental (e.g. an Elephant treading on an ant) and 3) Some forms of deliberate damage, such as predation, are simply eating, as there is no sign of animus towards the prey. It appeared to me that most forms of meaningful 'aggression' involved interactions between members of the same species (they were generally 'intraspecific'). I ended up concluding that the least contentious forms of aggression involved :- 1) Direct competition for mates; 2) Territoriality (carving out an exclusive area) and 3) Striving to improve social status within a group. These were just slightly different ways of increasing an organism's breeding potential to 'leave copies of its genes in the next generation'. All were essentially forms of intraspecific 'competition'. Concepts of 'offense' and 'defence' also differentiated the distinct behavioural features of particiants (e.g. a dominant and a subordinate) in some of these interactions. Human dialogue has, of course, exploited such distinctions. 'He is being aggressive: I am merely defending my rights'. In this sense, the term 'aggression' has been simply employed as a negative label (negative apperception). So, what of causing deliberate environmental damage, to boost profits? Such activities are, by definition, deliberate and will cause damage to other people sharing that environment. The wealth (and the breeding potential?) of the environmental vandal is also likely to be increased. 'Climate change denialism' then becomes a mechanism for the damager hiding his/her true motivation from either a) others, to facilitate success of the exercise or b) themselves (a generous interpretation?), so they feel better about it. It's consequently a 'no-brainer'. Causing deliberate environmental damage, to boost profits is a very 'human' form of 'aggression'. It's really not so different from a bull Elephant seal fighting for its harem of females. The real downside, is that environmental damage wrecks the planet we all (and they) ultimately depend on. That gets me thinking about deliberately spreading misinformation as 'click bait' but life's too short.