The last few decades have seen a plethora of industry-ENGO partnerships forged in hopes of quelling the environment vs economy debate. These are the “realist” environmentalists, the ones asserting that real progress against all-encompassing issues like climate change and biodiversity loss cannot be tackled without the cooperation of industry, without the protection of economic interests. “We can have both!”, they say, echoing most policy makers. One example of industry-ENGO partnerships are the various standard setting and certification schemes that exist for all manner of products, from paper, to coffee, to soy, to shrimp. The aim behind these partnerships is to give consumers the choice to purchase more ecologically-mindful products, while allowing corporations to raise their public profiles and enter new, competitive markets. Yet, despite these “sustainability” initiatives, the destruction of vital ecosystems continues at alarming rates; so too does the exploitation of workers worldwide.

Making the case for continued economic growth, mainstream environmentalists argue that the prioritization of environmental quality occurs once per-capita incomes rise above covering basics such as food and shelter, using examples like Canada and the U. S. as some of the wealthiest and “cleanest” nations. However, these and other arguments proposed by free-market enthusiasts fail to address issues of equity and exported pollution to developing nations which are labeled environmentally irresponsible. Market optimism arguments ignore the solid causal link between the dismal state of the environment and economic development, and the highly politicized nature of the current crisis. The reality is that the necessary progress towards solving problems like climate change is at odds with the dominant ideology of our times: unregulated capitalism. To address the environmental crisis in a meaningful way means we need to change much about our world, a truth that some environmentalists have not yet accepted, clinging to industry partnerships and supporting market-based policy instruments such as cap and trade. Instead, what is needed, is an alternative to the “responsible economic growth” narrative, one that is underlined by issues of inequality, over-consumption, corporate greed and greenwashing.