Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? I'm always unsure about this. What are the right reasons here? We live in a capita

Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? I'm always unsure about this. What are the right reasons here? We live in a capitalist system and the base assumption is individuals and institutions will contribute to the common good for their own selfish reasons. If that works out, it can't get much better than that. My criticism isn't that this is Microsoft acting "for the wrong reasons" but that it is Microsoft acting on the wrong level. A large number of public facing corporations being carbon-negative is meaningless if many other corporations and consumers with no public face are carbon positive by a lot more. Essentially, I'd put on my institutional economist hat and say the only solution to CO2 pollution problem, an externality of production[1], is state regulation. That is state regulation involving direct enforcement, not taxes, not incentives, not promises. The basic analogy is a leaking, pressurized container - you can't incentivize the water coming out, you can't slowly plug a few holes, you have to plug each hole together or the remaining holes just leak more (or at least leak unacceptable much). And here the obligation is for public to only be satisfied with PR moves that aim to fight global warming centrally. And this is where the cachet of pathetic individual and group moves to (pretend to) "fight global warming" is destructive. We should demand things from corporations, which they can do for PR reasons but we should demand is them support strong regulation affecting all CO2 producers, not all the other (useless) moves. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality