Moh KilaniModule 2Final PaperWho should lead? Those who have the power, the willingness and the efficacynamely, governments like Norway, because they combine proximate and ultimate responses to serious issues. The culture they engender is resilient, egalitarian and non-wasteful, while the government is serious about business being curtailed to the greater needs of the environment, i.e., not poisoning or enslaving everyone for a buck. All social phenomena can work synergistically. Ecology and capitalism are no exception to this notion. If there are defined parameters and extremes, then a median synergy can be found to the long term benefit of all. Operationally for the proximate effect, this would have to be undertaken by a third party that is unaffected by the biases of the two sides initially involved. In the case of ecology and capitalism, this third party has to be governance armed with regulatory frameworks at all levelsnational, transnational, and subnational that have teeth that cannot be ignored. For the ultimate effect, government is once again involved but in this case, the challenge is changing the cultural and educational landscape of the coming generations and their attitudes to consumption, recycling, capitalism and business. In a phrase, changing the ontology and worldview of the coming generations. As noted by Dauvergne, the Japanese shadow ecology transferred the environmental cost to the globally southern Malaysian ecology. This occurred despite the many proclamations of the Japanese corporations, and governmentfor the primary reason of the toothlessness of the regulations involved. Regulations that are not punitive or not applied may as well not exist. Furthermore, solutions must be commensurate with the problem. In this case, we have transnational problems (deforestation by a shadow ecology) that effect international problems (global climate change)and so the commensurate solution is an efficacious transnational regulation, with an international objective. We have seen that large multi-national corporations in the last two decades have co-opted the idea of sustainability, resulting in eco-business, as noted in Dauvergnes more recent work. This resulted in a greater business discipline focused on efficiency and sustainability, lowering the cost of production per unit, but with no slowing down in the rate of capitalism and consumerismyielding a greater negative impact on the environment that previously. Here, then, is the proof that a more efficient system without a change in its root motives or controls will only become faster and have a greater impact than its initial state. In this case without a slowing down of conspicuous consumption and the institution of regulatory frameworks with sufficient gravity, business ended up having a more destructive impact on global ecology.In Epsteins Making Sustainability Work, we can see the extent and depth of the integration of corporate sustainability models. The list includes giants like Honda, British Petroleum, Toyota, CEMEX, Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Puma, DeBeers, and involves many different metrics and schema for measuring impact. The metrics and ideas are wide and variedcommonly we see carbon emissions, risk matrices, environmental audit systems, accountability cycles, and so on. The fact that eco-business did co-opt sustainability measures into their systems is proof of another facet in the larger strategythat tactical change can and does occur within the system. Therefore, the proximate causes can be altered, in relatively short timeframes. This has been demonstrated across the spectrum of business ventures from big box retailers, shipping companies, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers. They have used the latest in communication technologies to effectively collapse the supply chain distance, used more green friendly enzymatic reactions in industrial chemistry, more energy and resource efficient utilities, less wasteful processes and more recycling, all in a greater bid to appease consumers, governments and other organizations. In addition to this, the slowly dawning realization that many resources are finite has begun to take root in many corporations, and that if not managed correctly, will affect their bottom line, if not their very existence in the future. The current trend in eco-sustainability is largely led by business, with some push from various governments, mostly those of the Nordic countries, like Norway, Sweden and the like. But this green technology, energy saving, efficiency trend has come from businesses, in response to rising concern from consumers and governments. But, as demonstrated, they have used the trend to make themselves bigger, faster and more destructive and in the face of unenforced laws and agreements, they will generally do what is in their interest. Though some have said this is just the nature of capitalism, I posit that it is not. Rather, it is a reflection of the ontology and worldview of the people running the corporations, and of the consumers. It is just as feasible to run the same businesses, at a slower rate that is more conducive to products that arent built with planned obsolescence, to cleaner environs, safer workplaces and so on.To change the worldview, governments must lead the charge in two ways that address the proximate and ultimate causes. The immediacy of the environmental crises requires that governments pen punitive regulations for environmental offenders, and bring the business world to heel by not allowing shortcuts, outsourcing, and transaction and process opacity. To add to this, the creation of a minimum world wage standard would need to be institutedWalmart, Apple, Target, etc., would be unable to outsource to the 3rd to avoid living wages or taxation, and as such would be cornered by policy makers. Such an agreement would have to occur between governments, and so a transnational solution for a transnational problem is born. The second aspect that governments must concern themselves with is addressing the ultimate cause, that of culture and worldview of those they govern. Education, media, propaganda must all share a common vision in creating a new set of consumptive and environmental norms. A prime example of this is the institution of green teams, as mentioned in this module, where the children are given more and more exposure to green materials and methods. Education, especially, will have more of a transformative effect on the coming environmental impact than any other framework, laws or agreement. This is not to negate the role of law and regulationmerely to distinguish immediate, proximate actions from long-term, strategic and ultimate actions. To conclude, it is necessary for governments to reign in businesses, while transforming the culture to one of sustainability and thriftiness, values that are not often innate in many cultures, but are becoming more essential as populations rise and resources dwindle.