@ #13 Good point. The most important thing that I think you're getting at is that there need to be tough standards to ensure that we DO get a better part of the deal, and that we're not settling for some piddly insignificant action and offering a huge amount of "greenwashing" in return. And this sort of gets into the great number of "slippery slopes" that are involved with this model, as I discuss a little in my page about possible revenue models.

I think a key part will be pitting companies against their competitors, and letting the market drive them to make stronger and stronger commitments....We're not just going to say "hey Nike, start sourcing fair-trade shoe rubber and we'll give you a marketing campaign!" Instead it would be more like, "greetings shoe industry, we want to see fair-trade rubber (or whatever). Who has a proposal that will impress us?" Then Adidas and Reebok (who, as non-leading brands have more incentive to try to improve their reputation) might compete with who was willing to buy more rubber from the fair-trade collective, or use only recycled cardboard on their little pricetags, or whatever. So Adidas might be pushed to do more by their desire to deprive Reebok from any gains. Only one of them would be rewarded. Whoever had the strongest offer. The fact that only one company gets the reward makes the reward that much more valuable. So hopefully this will result in actions that are practical and feasible for the company, as well as impressive enough for our standards....

Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback! And Cory, thanks for posting! This is my plan so let me respond on a few points...

@#3 One thing to point out is that when we move on past liquor stores to take on big brands with more global campaigns, there are going to be 2 elements to the "carrot" that we offer. One will be the cash we bring in. I agree with #4 about the power that the 90% has in this regard, but the other, perhaps more powerful element of the carrot is reputation value. The 90% has complete control over what this company's reputation will be. Are they good, or are they bad? Of course, my belief is that all companies are partly good or partly bad. But the fact is that we can create a strong impression that will help one company become known as "the good company" in it's industry. This would be a conditional, temporary sort of endorsement, and it would be justified by the powerful environmental steps they would have to take to get the endorsement. I think the value of that endorsement (assuming this idea catches on and gets big, etc) may be more important to companies than the actual cash.

@#5 Sorry you feel that way. We're not out to eliminate "vice". We're also not going to limit our attention to those businesses that already seem "good". Carbon emissions are carbon emissions, and we need to cut them down EVERYWHERE. I chose a liquor store, (which is actually more of a market that sells lots of regular groceries) because it's a business where a lot of people can spend a lot of money in a very short amount of time, and they can do it by spending on things that they are likely to need to buy anyway. In this way, the consumer sacrifices nothing and achieves a great deal....

@ #7 I agree that companies who engage in our campaigns may be playing both sides of the field. They may be full of it. It doesn't matter. I don't expect anything more of the companies than their usual profit-seeking behavior. We're not trying to convince anyone of anything, we're just making deals. If they agree to spend 5 million to put solar panels on their factories, and that's an important action from our perspective, we're going to get it done. We won't be refusing to talk to companies just because they have irresponsible packaging or a bad maternity leave policy or something. One concrete step at a time is what we're about....