First, I want to pick on the idea stated by Jones that “the moral standards we hold for each other must be applied to corporations”. Since corporations and, perhaps, especially international corporations represent such a powerful force in our globalized economy, it is very important to find a way to held them accountable for what they do, as each of us are accountable to various institutions (including various formal and informal moral codes). Evidently, the “as” here is problematic: what kind of agents are corporations? Do/should they have the same responsibilities as full moral agents? Who or what other institutions are to held them accountable? Those are all very difficult questions that we will have to address in more depth. I merely want here to suggest that even if it would be already very good (and almost miraculous) if corporations were held as accountable to the same set of moral standards as is any full moral agent, there are good reasons why they should be held more accountable then individuals on certain issues. The main reason would be, I think, that they have a capacity to acquire information and to predict the consequences of their decisions to an extent unavailable to individual agents (as their ability to market their own products shows). Since we tend to hold agent more accountable when they could have predicted an undesirable outcome then when they could not (except when they are guilty of maintaining themselves voluntarily in ignorance), corporations should be held more accountable then individuals where they could more easily predict outcomes than individuals. If this is right, then it could be applied to most global and long term undesirable consequences. Is it quite easy here to think at their contribution to global warming as an example.

Second, corporate sponsorship is subsidized by the government, i.e. us, in terms of tax credits. In other words, it allows corporation another way to avoid paying taxes while subsidizing part of their publicity and good image. Even if the causes they support are noble, who put them in charge of deciding which causes we should finance? Isn’t part of the job of the government we elected to make these decisions and not the job of unelected corporations?

1. Glorification of the local-scale
Like Thomas Homer-Dixon espoused in his seminar, environmental change is likely to begin only with small, community-based, grassroots organizations, as the state, in the current political climate, is virtually impenetrable. And while I think his points are valid, I believe that placing too much faith in smaller organizations has the potentially to be damaging, in displacing essential information.

2. The role of civil society in environmental policy and action
I believe strongly in the role of civil society in providing checks on governance (at the national and international scales). NGO’s, etc. rely largely on small-scale, voluntary progects, and I think that the public is more likely to respond to voluntary suasion rather than state-led enforcement. Perhaps I push this concept a bit too far when I say that I think civic society has the potential to act as a an international form of moral government.

3. Corporate sponsorship
That last point made, I realize I am a bit idealistic, as NGO’s, etc. need the funds to operate and implement projects. It seems hypocritical at every level, though, to accept funding from corporations whose reasons for giving the money are (through my cynical perspective) more to do with tax breaks and reputation than interest in the environment. But where will the money come from? This is always the question.