Those are some sweeping generalizations. Capitalism is fundamentally at the whim of the market, so it is the market that determines all of that. Effectively, what you are saying is that people (customers) are unwilling to demand ethical behavior, environmental consciousness, etc from firms in the market.

While tragedy of the commons is certainly a fact of any unregulated public good, there is a free-market solution to internalize negative externalities. The command-and-control techniques of socialist governments in the 70s (and, admittedly, the US as well) are being replaced in a rare step toward free market economy. This and the protection of property rights (the most important single requirement for trade) are the main reason for government; effectively, it prevents prisoner's dilemmas.

I've already summed up your argument and it's a fundamental difference that no expounding of economic theory (or in your case, blathering) is going to change. I want allocative efficiency and you wan't equity.

The difference is that my solution has a practical, real world-applicable means of achieving allocative efficiency, while your way expects unrealistic sacrifices and a shift in the entire paradigm.