Exactly! A number of companies and even countries have discovered that being environmentally responsible actually ends up helping the "bottom line". They thought they were just, as Paul would say, "doing the light bulb thing", only to discover that even if the actual cost wasn't directly covered, the goodwill the action generated made up for the difference.
The other option is to make that Cattail methane production idea and turn it into a profit-viable business and/or machine; providing financial incentive to others to take advantage of this resource, without it "costing" any money.
Here the question I have is how do we help those "programs/charities" avoid the greenwashing trap and provide people with information on profit-making solutions, even if that profit is only internal to the family (such as growing food displacing grocery expenses), or to the company (a healthy environment keeps workers healthier lowering medical costs). I see two things that interfere: the first is the difficulty many people have of thinking "outside the box", and the second is their natural risk aversion to something new that may not work.
~90% of green programs/charities are spending money to educate/encourage the populace to act on their own volition - also proving not to be cost-effective(although still good )