You wrote: "What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side."
And I argued that this idylic picture of the "industrial economy" being some benevolent industrialists striving to provide us with "goods and services we enjoy" is false.
How? In the sense that industrialists don't just cater to our (pre-existing needs) as you imply, but, with the aid of advertising, condition and manipulate us to consume and want those "goods and services" in the first place.
Hence, "corporate pollution" is not just the necessary result of our real consumption needs, but also of inflated advertisement driven consumption. Without the latter both consumotion and "corporate pollution" would be vastly less than what it is today.
P.S. And it's not just advertising industrialists use, there are other even more heinous things they use to help increase consumption, from ""planned obsolescence", to killing the public transit system to sell cars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... ), to modern-day killing of free municipal wi-fi to sell shity broadband options.
So I don't really understand the intermediate step. Corporations advertise. Then people choose to consume. People could choose differently if they wanted.