No Impact Man, green or gr$$n

A lot of the criticism around the "no impact man" project comes from the possibility of him earning a living off of it. Or in some way benefitting it. This is something that I have noticed in a lot of the different comments that have been made to his postings since I have been reading it. I particularly noticed a lot of it during the period right after his televisions appearances. Today it showed up again, in his posting about taking matters into your own hands, it was again brought up by a commenter to the site that;

"If you really care about the earth, then donate the profits of your upcoming book to a worthy charity. Otherwise, stop pretending that you care about the environment more than the almighty dollar."

I may be overestimating myself and my powers of perception, but I don't see what one has to do with the other. We have all heard the mantra about the evil corporate entities out there corrupting everything they touch. To the extent that there are businesses out there with no concern towards anyone or anything but the shareholders and the bottom line this is based in fact. I don't believe that Colin falls into that catagory. The thing I see as a common thread to a lot of the activists and/or very environmentally conscious persons out there is the idea that it is better to be poor and working only for "The Mission", than to be able to make money at the same time as taking a stand for causes that we believe in. So often it is a topic of conversation about companies that are environmentally conscious, or are trying to reduce there footprint on the earth, and these companies are held up as beakons of what is possible, and how things could be(Which I agree, should be the case.) . Even in the same comments section as the one I am referring to here, Patagonia was held up as a positive corporate role model. Are these companies expected to give back the money that they make, or even the money they may save for that matter in order to validate that they do in fact care about the planet? I don't think most of us would argue that point. I certainly would not. If fact, I would argue that by showing that these companies and individuals can make a living, at the same time as having a positive influence on the environment, we will encourage other companies to look to alternatives to the mainstream ways of doing things and could in fact have a still greater influence on the world than they are already.
Do I believe that Colin, the "No Impact Man", is deliberately trying to profit off the environment by drawing attention to his project? No. Do I think that it is beyond the scope of such a thing to happen today. Again, No. In this day and age we have to be discerning with the people or entities that we hold up as role models. Unfortunately I think a lot of people out there are far to fast to believe anything that they are told or see in a soundbite news media, and are far to influenced by what the world says they should care about. But I submit that if a person is genuinely doing something that can influence huge numbers of people to rethink there actions, or to begin to take steps to reduce their impact, and that person is able to make a buck at the same time while maintaining their integrity, good for them.
Please share your thoughts with me, I'd love to know if I am alone on this one?
P~