WmC, amacd and almost everyone else believes "the key to the problem is forcing corporations to internalize the negative externalities they now generate in the form of pollution, etc. and pricing (and taxing) goods and services according to the social costs they impose."

We have to ask ourselves "where do they get the right to do this?" They didn't always have it. Congress didn't give it to them. One by one state legislatures did in order to pursue a fool's gold. They thought that by eliminating provisions of state law that kept corporations from harming the public interest, they would attract more business. One by one they changed their laws in what came to be known the "race to the bottom."

Delaware won that race, but few of the companies that organized there actually have operations within the state. Moreover, the fees and taxes Delaware receives for this are a pittance (less than $1 billion per year) in today's world.

One by one (either starting with Delaware or ending with it) we need to change these laws back to once again internalize the costs of pollution and other negative externalities. The way to do it is through the form of Hippocratic Oath suggested above requiring all companies incorporated within a state to "first do no harm".

Though somewhat rambling, everyone should carefully consider amacd's post @ 9:58 am. I, too, believe the key to the problem is forcing corporations to internalize the negative externalities they now generate in the form of pollution, etc. and pricing (and taxing) goods and services according to the social costs they impose.

Right now, Congress essentially ignores these negative externalities, thereby effectively subsidizing the operations of the corporations. Such indirect subsidies dwarf the direct subsidies and other forms of welfare payments that corporations receive.

Where I differ with amacd: I don't think corporations will ever willingly give up the subsidies. As to Congress forcing them to do so? Don't make me laugh.

Paul,

The Ford v. Dodge case required corporations to use profit as the primary factor when making any decision. When that decision is made it has to be with the intention of maximizing profits or the shareholders have legal recourse. If a company makes product X, but it's not as profitable as Y, it doesn't necessarily matter if product X is for a different market. For instance, if Dodge's sales are lagging they're not required by the law to switch to selling fast food or something. They're required to produce the products – in that given market -- so as to maximize profits by the least costly means.

So, if a new Dodge model comes out and a similar car made by Toyota is outselling it, even if it never beats Toyota in sales, they have to use the cheapest means possible to try and maximize return. The law is to maximize using what you have - not necessarily lead the market (although that is the goal), whether it's with advertising, improving the car, lowering the cost of production, etc. Maximizing profits doesn't simply mean the highest possible profits in the entire economy, just in a sector; vs. all the competition. The law may not be totally uniform, all the time, but it works like this in every company when considering product lines, workers pay, etc.

How the courts would hold up your examples on an individual basis I do not know. The fact that, by now, corporate culture is very much in-line with this is the reality and that may be the reason why there have been relatively few subsequent cases brought before the courts – it's institutionalized. The initial decision was specific to the Ford v. Dodge case (involving workers pay) and didn't make the distinction as to what it means to maximize profit in every scenario; I don't think that's even possible. Any new disputes would be judged case by case. You don't have to be an apologist to make the claim. It's the ugly truth, but I'm not naïve enough to think without it capitalism would produce better results, but it's very possible a hint of benevolence would appear and there would be no legal outlet to stop it. Ford's attempt to pay workers a fairer wage is an example of corporate benevolence, I suppose.

The CEO usually gets a package contract before they start working because they are powerful enough that people actually offer them positions, but they hired him/her with the intent that their "leadership" will maximize profits. The CEOs safeguard themselves by signing these severance agreements up front. Often times they WILL "suffer" from poor performance in less stock, smaller bonus payouts, etc. Given the nature of markets you can't just jump and make a product another company is making and, in the case of poor sales, a company will make attempts to imitate the market leader. That in itself could violate the law because it could cost more to change entirely than it would to make slight alterations to existing lines.

Sorry if this is jumbled and redundant. I don't have a whole lot of time!

amacd quotes a Dr. Llewellyn

"...regulation will eventually correct this market failure and charge companies for the "social cost" of emissions, whether through carbon trading or carbon taxation. He also suggests that an "economically rational society" may choose to charge more than the social cost of emissions, because it cares about the environment in its own right"

Isn't that nice. This is going to happen when? When the skies are black and those few of us left alive are living in plastic bubbles or underground while robots run the show on our poor near-dead planet? hmmm...sounds like a movie.

Robert Reich notes, "Some investment banks and private-equity firms are going green because they anticipate regulations that will make green pay off and reduce returns from companies that don't go green." [Actually, Robert, it will REDUCE VALUATIONS of companies that don't go green]

But Reich fails to explain that this new found concern with the impact that regulations to 'internalize' previously negative externalities will have on the critical issue of corporations' 'market valuations' is in fact the precise KEY to using the capitalist marketplace as the very "rope" with which to change corporate behavior.

If fact, the entire 'economics of empire', which is the economics of the global corporate Empire hiding behind this facade of 'Vichy America', overtly makes phony profits through gaming the well known 'market failure' of 'negative externalities'. And thus, regulations to force the 'internalization' of costs will actually use the power of the financial markets to beat corporations into good, social, and environmental behavior with the stick of the marketplace rather than any do-gooder carrot of 'playing nice' or phony/non-market 'corporate responsibility'.

The report that really amazed me was the following one by Citi, Lehman, and UBS banks, acknowledging that negative externality costs (the largest being global warming) were going to start being recognized and assessed against corporate polluters — and that these previously 'hidden' costs were going to start massively effecting the market valuations of such companies.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2237.html

This report by hard nosed bankers and their market analysts carries much more weight than any academic report, and it pins the full story and unsustainable economics of this Ponzi scheme on the guilty corporations — whose market valuation declines will be the clearest indicator that polluting and causing global warming will sound the death knell of companies that previously made profits only by hiding negative externalities. The real irony is that the death blow will be dealt by the capitalist markets themselves.

The report states:

The UBS and Lehman Brothers reports concur that climate change represents a classic market failure where company valuations neglect to take into account negative externalizations–in this case, predominantly the emission of carbon dioxide CO2, the primary greenhouse gas (GHG).

"The free market fails to limit climate-damaging emissions sufficiently, because polluters do not have to pay for the damage they cause," states John Llewellyn, senior economic policy advisor at Lehman Brothers, in The Business of Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities. "A basic role of policy in such cases is to 'internalize' such costs into emitters' cost structures–the 'polluter pays' principle."

UBS advances nearly the identical analysis, and extends it.

"Moreover, many policies, infrastructure, and institutions presently distort market outcomes to favor fossil fuel use, inefficient energy practices, and rising greenhouse gas emissions," states the UBS report. "Without the cost of climate change embedded in market prices, there is less of an incentive for the private sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide the conditions necessary to maintain a stable climate."

"Therefore, free markets underestimate the future costs to society that would arise if the climate experienced a drastic transformation: a result which many scientists now predict will happen if there is no change to influence free market outcomes," it continues.

If climate change, one of the most studied environmental phenomena, represents a market failure, one can only wonder to what degree the legion of lesser-studied environmental and social externalities are not being priced into corporate valuations.

Dr. Llewellyn of Lehman Brothers predicts that regulation will eventually correct this market failure and charge companies for the "social cost" of emissions, whether through carbon trading or carbon taxation. He also suggests that an "economically rational society" may choose to charge more than the social cost of emissions, because it cares about the environment in its own right (beyond simply balancing environmental costs and benefits), and because it wants to hedge against risk even further than this equilibrium. So companies may have to overcompensate with internalizations, essentially making up for their historical backlog of externalizations."

In conclusion, what Reich does not seem to explain, or appreciate, is that 'the market' (or the invisible hand of the marketplace, as Smith would say) has already intuited some knowledge that is generally beyond the knowledge of most individuals --- and that knowledge is that dysfunctional 'gaming' of the market with negative externality cost hiding schemes is about to be SEVERELY PUNISHED by the market itself with the most severe punishment that markets can impose on corporations: collapsing VALUATIONS!!

In sum, things are going to get better for us and the environment than Reich apparently understands --- and conversely things are about to get much worse for corporations and the global corporate EMPIRE that depends for its life on negative externalization Ponzi schemes.

Paul from Texas ~ I applaud your cogent and accurate portrayal of the situation! We need to focus on the REAL benefits of REAL ecological practices and policies, setting aside the political farce of anthropomorphic global warming for good! AGW will soon be proven to be completely bogus, and we don't want the perception that the whole ecological movement was in lockstep with it. Al Gore is much of a real ecologist as Rush Limbaugh is a real conservative ~ both are well-winded entertainers and that's it.

kivals: Well, where does this court opinion draw the line between "wholesale" and "minor" changes? Most all Fortune-100's, for instance, are not limited to a single widget, product, market, factory, etc. Wouldn't this court opinion technically then force them to eliminate all product lines except their most profitable ones? Why or why not?

I got the feeling when Thom Hartman brought this up that it was a sort of global-capitalist apology: corporations are basically good at heart, and it's just this nasty old law making them do bad things. A sort of Democratic soothsaying. And, god knows, corporations obey all laws, and all such laws are enforceable.

Paul Bramscher,

The rule that officers of corporations must act only in the interests of the shareholders comes from the seminal case Dodge v. Ford Motor Company decided by the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919 and adopted universally thereafter.

Over time it has come to be accepted that corporations can, on the surface, deviate from the rule to generate positive PR that will help profitability in the long run. That is the justification for the television commercials by corporations explaining how environmentally friendly they are. Generally the corporation will spend X doing something in the public interest and spend 10X advertising that fact, expecting to get a return in the long run of 11X+.

There is a good related discussion about corporate behavior by Robert C. Hinkley, a corporate attorney who wrote the Code for Corporate Citizenship, at:
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533

gyptian,

As you know by now (since I've explained it several times here on CD), the Democrats in control of The White House and Congress are the only alternative in 2008 to having the Republicans in control in 2008.

Because I'm not smokin' something, as you like to allege, I can think clearly enough to see that reality.
Democrats, when in charge, put more reigns on Corporations than Republicans do when they're in charge.

You guys in the "we've been sold out so we're gonna get Cindy, Ralph and Dennis to go get-em" chorus must somehow like conservatives making your laws. I don't.

Global warming mythology is one-world government B.S., aimed at more wastage of taxpayers' money.

We do need to clean up civilization, beginning with the replacement of petroleum with viable alternatives like solar, wind, and bio-diesel.

We do need to clean up our seashores and stop sewage pollution of our coral reefs.

We do need to build a greener world---through public education.

We do NOT need a global crusade that controls people, nations, and money. The politicization of global warming is the liberal flip side to the conservatives' war on terror.

Let's be more specific here: the fossil fuel corporations and the investment & commercial banks that control them and the fossil fuel and energy traders who work the NYMEX and IPE energy exchanges in New York and London are definitely not going to solve the problem. In fact, addressing global warming will mean the end of the profitability of the above mentioned entities.

What is needed is a three-fold approach to replace fossil fuel energy with sunlight, wind and photosynthesis-based energy systems. That means solar photovoltaics and wind turbines in place of coal-fired electricity plants, and electric- and sustainable biofuel-based transportations systems, as well as an improved energy grid - and a number of other technological innovations.

What that means is that hundreds of billions of investment in renewable energy infrastructure is desperately needed. Such investment will create robust economic activity in whatever countries adopt it - and the only losers will be the entrenched fossil fuel interests - i.e., the people who control the U.S. government right now.

So, we will need corporations (or businesses and banks, if you prefer) to invest in renewables - but they need to be pressured to do so - and that's where government comes in. The government needs to strip all subsidies and tax breaks and military support from the fossil fuel industy, and give all that support to the renewable energy industry.

That's what people want, and that's what the Democrats promised to do - but thanks to Democratic fossil fuel tools like John Dingell, all progress has been stalled on this issue. The fossil fuel corporations and their controlling interests still exert vast political power due to their extensive financing of elections in the U.S.

This has to change if any real progress is to be made on global warming and renewable energy - and supporting renewable energy businesses will be a critical step.

For example, we need banks that will make loans to homeowners for solar PV systems. Once the solar PV system is installed, instead of paying an electric bill to a utility the homeowner will simply make a monthly loan payment to the bank until the system is paid off - a notion that the corporate electric utilities will fight as hard as they can.

And so on.

genaman, I suggest we begin by taking charge of our energy future.

http://www.permaculture.com/site/node/360

A new book shows how.

Good luck.

Why are we harping on Corporations? They are not the problem. We are the problem, We keep buying from them then throwing away their products and buying more.

Are we even capable of making our own products anymore? Why is it we don't try to reuse or invent other ways to use thease already bought products. There isn't even a carbon footprint if we do that.

Another thing is if we stop being slaves to all corporations .Their prices will fall.
If you want green then you must go green . Even those anti- global warmers will have more green in their pockets.

Oh, Worried about Jobs HUH? Hey hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost each year .
If you are more self saficent then it will even hurt less losing a job. And Whats to say that you cannot start your own business?

You American history buffs. There wasn't one single Walmart back then. Sears And Roebuck Catalogs were reused in the outhouse.
"Are We Slaves Or Are We Free?"
genaman

Jaded Parole and others offer keen insight as usual.

Preditory Supercapitalism cannot go green. It owns the government. Just like the Phamacuticals, it will pretend to pump money into research, but really 99% of this money will go into lobbying and marketing to try and make us think the industry is "self-regulating." These big megacorps all have hundred million dollar legal "dream teams" too, that will ensure they get exempted from the gross poluting that they've been doing forever.

And all these steps are just pathetic, half attempts anyway. What has to happen is so drastic to make affect, as to be unspeakable. Mass Mandatory Human Sterilization; cesation of all forms of emmitters. Suspend the right to have children or drive a private automobile until the carbon ppm number drops below 400.

And even those drastic measures (requiring military enforcement) may not be enough to stop the 30-50 year temperature heat-sink buildup to unsurvivable levels.

Mankind doesn't have the big picture yet. Megacorps do, and simply don't care what happens to non-millionaires.

It has been this way since the first petty tyrant king forced his form of holy war on an unsuspecting people.

Goodnight, Sweet Prince

daniel david
--"pack every level of government so full of Democrats (aka progressives, aka liberals) as to make government the sole arbiter of corporate policy for the rest of our lives"

Whatever youve been smoking 2 weeks ago, the effects havent lifted yet. Either you are a Democratic Party spy or you work for rahm emmanuel in the DLC. Please do not utter Democrats and Liberals and Progressives in the same breath.

The Democratic Party sold out the Democrats, Liberals and Progressives many years ago. They probably forgot to send you the memo. You sound eerily like a corporate apologist by the way !!

1999? Really?

The corporations wrote themselves into U.S. Federal law as 'persons' over a hundred years ago. This is the result. We can either remove the corporations or remove the people. Mother Nature dosen't give a damn either way. What will the hyper rich do on an empty planet? There will be nobody left to buy and sell.

Corporations are built to accumulate wealth. If they create any goods and services, it's because the enforcement of rules and regs in whatever area they carry out operations forces them to, if they are going to accumulate wealth.

Officers in corporations climb to decision making positions because they show that they will make decisions that contribute to the corporation's accumulating of wealth. Persons who might not, or will not make such decisions do not get to decision making positions. (This is why so many corporate officers feel such pressure; it's their human side versus their corporate side.)

So corporations do what they have to to accumulate wealth. They do not exist to do other things, especially things that interfere with accumulating wealth.

So we can't expect these business entities to act against their own corporate interests...no matter how many living breathing grand children their CEOs and other top officers might have.

Corporations will work to improve the environment when they are compelled to under severe penalty.

They will do a few flashy PR moves to try to postpone actual work just like Walmart dribbles a few dollars around town to buy goodwill after they destroy a communities business district.

Then they raise prices.

THE CODE 33: Excellent posting. You laid out an excellent strategy and set of incentives.

GAIL: Thanks for the book tip.

"BP...has promoted itself with a $200 million ad campaign as the environmentally friendly oil company that will go "Beyond Petroleum.""

There goes another $200 million wasted on advertising that could have been spent on researching enviornmentally friendly energy sources.

Even worse, our U.S. Congress gives billions in tax breaks to companies like this so they can waste millions every year advertising how wonderful they are to be investing 1% (+/-) of their profits on research to help stop the global warming crisis. How Godly of them!

I'm looking forward to reading "FREE LUNCH" by David C. Johnston when it comes out in December. It's about how the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at the expense of tax payers.

Don't forget to put this book on your holiday gift list.

Whe Gore's representative spoke to us in Hood River OR, we asked him repeatedly--how are we going to deal with a consumer economy? Changing lightbulbs and driving hybrid cars isn't going to cut it. The entire economy has to transition--he had no answers other than the 'going green pays off'...

The 'unavoidable dilemma' of the consumer economy is that eventually we have 'enough stuff'..but our capitalistic system doesn't have a way to deal with that--thus, we keep making more and more and more.. Everyone knows it has to stop--but the second we do, everyone knows the economy comes to a halt and so we stick our heads in the sand.

But there is another choice. Riane Eisler points this out in her book, Real Wealth of Nations...creating a caring economics. By choosing what we value--money/stuff vs. caring/life, we design our economy. Shifting to a caring economics is already underway--just hasn't caught the spiral media buzz yet (and obviously, corporate media doesn't want it seen).
But's its happening.
www.realwealtheconomy.com www.partnershipway.org

kivals,

But it doesn't hold in practice. Corporations waste far too much money on CEO salaries, and there's an essential give/take between short-term vs. medium-term vs. long-term cost benefits analysis. What's expensive this quarter might pay off huge rewards next year, etc.

In any case, my main point still holds. If companies are merely economic siphons for shareholders, why doesn't that court opinion force everyone to abandon whatever industry they are in, and work strictly in the most profitable product lines and sectors? For instance -- news has abandoned journalism and gone to entertainment reporting. It's not merely a question of doing what is "most profitable". It's a sector shift.

Clearly, this rationale -- that companies are somehow law-abiding "citizens" and merely doing what they are required to do -- is smoke. Shame on Thom Hartman for trying to promote it.

Companies will not ever lead to change to ecologically better practices until it is in their financial interest to do so. Remember, it is the company's job to maximize profits for their stockholders. Until it becomes a financial hinderence to stick with fossil fuels, they will stay the course. That is why it is going to take a carbon tax like Al Gore & Chris Dodd propose. Under that system a company that is greener than the standard for their industry can sell their excess "green" to companies that aren't quite to the standard yet, thus making it profitable to make your company as green as you can. Until there is financial incentive, nothing will change.

Can someone cite for me, very specifically, what law it is that corporations must produce for their shareholders? I'd like to see the wording for myself. Thom Hartman made a similar unqualified comment once. It's clearly smoke.

Example #1. You are a company which makes X. It turns out that X, by the nature of its market niche, is not as profitable as Y. So are you legally obliged to switch your whole sector in the name of profits? For instance, should a struggling US auto manufacturer or any other failing company be expected to re-tool all of its factories and instead produce something more profitable like iPods, video games or junk food to provide for its shareholders?

Example #2. If such a law had any muscle to it, CEO's, particularly non-performing CEO's, would see significant reductions in their packages -- so more money could be rolled back to the shareholders instead.

I read the headline to this piece and my reaction is 'Duhhh!' That seems so blindly obvious as to be beyond comment. I wish I could be a college professor and propound on the extremely obviously like this.

Code 33 said:

"The law which says the corporation's purpose is to make money for shareholders needs to be improved. It should include a form of Hippocratic Oath similar to that taken by doctors. First do no harm. Changing the corporate law to include such an oath is a necessary step towards closing the Citizenship Gap."

Great idea. But my first thought is that unless ALL multinationals adopt it, corporations will complain that we are hindering their competitiveness unless it's made voluntary in which case not much will be done. It would be a great issue for Gravel, Kucinich, Cindy, or other progressive candidate to take up and get some discussion on.

The companies that are going green are doing so because of enlightened self-interest. It's the smartest thing to do in today's climate, going forward. Companies that fail to heed the warning signs will eventually fall of their own economic weight. There is every reason in the world to shift from fossi & nuclear fuels to renewables, solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, etc. The American economy requires it. Resource wars in the Middle East will fizzle out without American consumption of fossil fuels.

Paul Bramscher,

The rationale was originally developed and evolved by pro-business courts which had their own biases and limited perspectives. As a legal rule it is specific to the situation -- duties of officers in existing corporations with existing business operations, and cannot be extrapolated to require wholesale changes. Any radical change would have speculative benefits as the costs of transition are high and to some extent unpredictable. Also, I believe the decision has been interpreted to mean that the officers have the discretion to determine the relative importance of long-term vs. short-term profits. Now that allows flexibility you could drive the Fortune 500 through. Any large-scale change would of course be directed only at long-term profits.

The critical point is that the officers of the corporation have to be able to offer some rationale as to why their actions will maximize profits over the short-term or the long-term, with the short-term vs. long-term emphasis being in their discretion.

When I was a law student I gasped with most of the class when Dodge vs. Ford was being discussed (I attended a somewhat liberal law school, actually the one W was denied admission to). It appears obvious that if the most powerful entities in a society (corporations) are following that rule that the consequences could be catastrophic over the long term. But it seems it has gained its own inertia over time, and is deeply embedded in the web of expectations of the US business world and US culture in general. However, even corporate lawyers like Mr. Hinkley are well aware of the seriousness of the problem.

If you're a Kucinich supporter I urge you to go to http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll and vote for DFA to support Kucinich for president. Sorry for the cross posting.

The principal function of government is to protect the public interest. In a liberal democracy such as ours where everything is legal until a law is passed making it illegal, protecting the environment and other elements of the public interest can be a difficult task. It is impossible for government to foresee all the ways the public interest may be attacked and pass laws in advance prohibiting such behaviour.

The effectiveness of a liberal democracy is highly dependent upon the self-control of those that it governs. It needs them to refrain from using their freedom to pursue their own interests in ways that damage the public interest. This requires citizenship, especially from those that have the greatest capacity to damage the public interest.

Citizenship has two parts. First, citizens do not intentionally harm the public interest. Secondly, when their behaviour is found to be damaging the public interest in ways which were not previously apparent, they refrain from continuing such behaviour and do not interfere with the democratic process in its effort to pass laws making such behaviour illegal.

Liberal democracies work best when the governed have little ability or inclination to damage the public interest. When this form of government was first conceived, it only needed to be concerned with protecting the public interest from people. This was relatively easy. Individuals then had little capacity to significantly damage the public interest. Today, government's job is much more difficult. It must contend with the modern corporation.

Corporations are not like people. Because their actions are the collective actions of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people working together backed by huge sums of capital, they have tremendous capacity to harm the public interest.

Unlike most people, the modern corporation also has no natural respect for the public interest. By law, its only goal is one of self interest, the pursuit of profit. Too often this results in them lobbying our legislatures to preserve their right to continue with business as usual. You can't blame them for this. If business as usual is the most risk averse way of maintaining profitability, it's only natural they react in this manner.

Corporate organizational structures also act to diffuse personal responsibility for corporate actions. When no one person can be held accountable, destruction of the public interest is more likely to occur.

These traits inhibit the modern corporation from behaving as good citizens.

Citizenship is different from corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR occurs when, in an effort to protect the public interest, a company does more than the law requires. As a company becomes more socially responsible, its behaviour approaches corporate citizenship. Social responsibility comes in degrees. Citizenship does not. Good citizens do not harm the public interest in the pursuit of their own interest. CSR can also be turned on and off like a light switch. Citizenship requires consistency. You can't be a good citizen some of the time.

The extent to which a company externalises costs that damage the public interest can be described as a company's "Citizenship Gap." When operating in the Citizenship Gap, companies act legally (and maybe even socially responsibly), but they are not being good citizens. The consequences of the Citizenship Gap can be seen wherever legal behaviour results in significant damage to the public interest, including global warming, third world sweatshops and millions of people succumbing prematurely every year from tobacco.

In order to make companies better citizens we need to consider two things. First, should we continue to construe corporate gain at the expense of the public interest as normative and acceptable behaviour? We wouldn't accept an individual changing the world's climate, paying children six cents an hour or causing the premature death of millions of people. Should we continue to accept corporations doing it?

Secondly, we should question whether profit and protection of the public interest need be thought of as mutually exclusive goals forever. Our companies have operated for a long time under rules that allow them to externalise costs. We should consider how long a transition period is necessary to wean them off this. During this period investments in old plant, technology and processes that damage the public interest can be amortized and investments in new ones that do not can be made and bear fruit.

Big corporations are among the most, if not the most, powerful forces in our society. It's not good enough that they be socially responsible once in a while. We need them to respect the public interest all the time. In order to get that, we need to temper their inclination to pursue their own interest at the expense of the public's.

Making money is all well and good, but doing so should not come at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public health and safety and other elements of the public interest. We should cease the long running debate about "where" and "how" much corporate damage to the public interest is acceptable and begin to discuss "when" it should stop.

The law which says the corporation's purpose is to make money for shareholders needs to be improved. It should include a form of Hippocratic Oath similar to that taken by doctors. First do no harm. Changing the corporate law to include such an oath is a necessary step towards closing the Citizenship Gap.

Professor Reich can do all of us an even greater service, if or when he would stand tall, and out-loud, against the 'personhood' of corporations. I appreciated his earlier opinions in that direction recently. Now we need a handbook, a primer and passionate discourse authored by him (and/or other such experts), under the imprimatur of a major publisher. Then mount a full campaign. We are waiting for someone of his stature, accumen and celebrity to champion this cause: FRONT AND CENTER, PERMANENTLY, UNTIL THE TASK IS ACCOMPLISHED.

In other words, the Supreme Court decision (or should we say the Supreme's "clerks" decision)in the late 19th century granting full 'personhood' rights to corporations MUST be reversed, vacated, overturned. Whatever action does it, DO IT!

Until corporations, and the media they own and/or intimidate, are controlled on this planet, most sincere citizen efforts will continue to be blasted, flattened or essentially ignored. The silence of sleepwalking America is deafening. We have leaders, but are they using their voices to awaken, to educate the public toward clear and thoughtful action?

Professor Reich and colleagues, do you hear us? We eagerly await a positive commitment and response. And thank you for your eloquence, your careful thought and great writing. We do appreciate your work. Now, on to the most crucial reform.

That embarrassing gorilla in the corner of the living room is actually a hirsute, corporate person.

Corporations Rule!!!!

Any laws passed to control them will be rendered unconstitutional by the new Supreme Court as infringing on their god-given right to maximized profits.

"..because Goldman anticipates stricter regulations of coal-fired plants."

This is precisely the point. If we do not have laws that we enforce and clear mandates for improvement, corporations will continue to do window dressing.

Come on now, Commander. The trashing of the planet was going on way before Nader and his supporters mobilized against both US corporate parties. Why don't you give the Democrats the credit for the ecological trashing they did in the Clinton years, instead of acting as if it all started with Bush taking office? The Democrats are no ecological alternative to the Republicans at all. They are both pro Big Business.

Thank you Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader supporters. Your non-votes for Al Gore in the 1999 election helped to put me in power. Since then, I have enjoyed letting my frat brothers in corporate headquarters trash the planet. Hey! We Skull and Bones chaps all need money to buy private submarines!

Have you all seen that hilarious commercial that says "Imagine that -- an oil company as part of the solution."

I think a big part of the problem is that corporate bigwigs put out ads like that and then believe them. It seems to be a part of the mentality, saying it is the same as doing it.

I think two trends are going on. Certainly big oil hasn't used much of its huge and growing profits to clean up deadly pollution in places in Central America or the Niger River Delta that used to be cultivated to grow food. They should be condemned to spend some of their undue windfall to clean up these horrors that are killing local populations in some places.

Meanwhile though I do favor with my business a couple companies who are going all out to offer environmental friendly products and services. My office supplies companiy carries a line of inexpensive products made from recycled paper but sturdy quality, and they provide a pre-paid carton to return, free, used ink cartridges and fax machine products that they recycle. It's a good start and wouldn't it be nice if they start competing to see who is greenest? I think it will take hold.

I'm not going to knock any corporations that voluntarily do anything good for the environment, provided they DON'T run ads to tell us about it. If they run ads to brag, then we can all be pretty sure we're being lied to, duped for politics, or both.

As for government leading the way, the author is right on target. Americans have an opportunity and many good reasons in 2008 to pack every level of government so full of Democrats (aka progressives, aka liberals) as to make government the sole arbiter of corporate policy for the rest of our lives. Then government will be enabled lead without hindrance, as is actually the will of most citizens of the USA. You'll hear silly talk to the contrary, but there is no substitute for Democrats in a strong majority to bring the best for the environment and the best for citizens in every other way too.

Corporations may find a green image to be good PR but the system itself would prohibit real change. It's about profit and competition than the capitalist system has its own internal rules, No single corporation can afford to relinquish quarterly growth.

Corporations don't get'credit' either for the damage they have done, are doing, and want to continue to do to the planet's ecology. Let's give some encouragement to the people that want to severely curtail the power of the corporations to loot Mother Earth. Profit making at the public's general expense is what the corporations are all about, and Al Gore is their representative. We must struggle against corporate control over the world's affairs rather than praise them.

Thank you Mr. Reich. Agreeably, there's no incentive (short-term, which unfortunately is inherent to modern-day "capitalism") for these multinational corporations to espouse green issues -- unless it contributes to their bottom-line today.

Personally, I prefer the term of corporatism (in lieu of capitalism). It's really more appropriate, as is the term you coined, to describe the unfettered and relentless, at any human cost, pursuit of short-term gain.

The purpose of those, that are patting themselves on the back as stewards of the Earth, is to indoctrinate the willing public with propaganda (which they neatly sanitize and call "public relations"). This process is very transparent when corporations spend millions of dollars in advertising to enhance a false public image, instead of spending the same advertising on educating how, or why, their particular product or service is a better value for the consumer. This has been commonplace with defense contractors, pharmaceutical, and large energy corporations of late.

Professor Reich doesn't appear to give any credit where some credit, is in fact, due. It would be unreasonable to expect large multinational corporations who employ hundreds of thousands of people to turn their businesses inside-out to become environmentally inert overnight! Steps have been and are being taken to improve and I hope that we do recognize that fact. No, they aren't there yet, but when a company does it right, give them a little encouragement eh?