Our supporters, of course, share one thing in common–belief in our mission to “campaign for the forests, their inhabitants and the natural systems that sustain life by transforming the global marketplace through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action.”

You say that Shelagh’s report “clouds the debate”, but I think your post proves that it’s fodder for a valuable dialogue.

There ARE lots of capitalists who support the environment–I count many among my colleagues and friends. It’s also true that many don’t.

And why should they? A healthy environment caries no value in the current marketplace.

A more responsible economic system would require and reward “responsible environmental practices”–ours doesn’t, at least not sufficiently. On the contrary, it frequently rewards the opposite.

Take for example Grassy Narrows. Here’s a community that’s been living sustainably from the land for thousands of years–great for them and great for the land. Not great for “business”, however, according to Ontario. Why? Because the province awards logging licenses based on ability to reap “value” from the land–a very different “value” than what is recognized by Grassy Narrows, ecologists, and caribou lovers everywhere.

In any case, even if you don’t agree with Shelagh’s complaints of “speeches praising capitalism”, it’s hard to fault somebody for sparking dialogue about the environment within such central pillars of our economy.