Go for the green: buying beer? sneakers? a car? the most eco-conscious companies aren't always the most obvious

It isn't easy being green. No fewer than 137 eco-labels appear on consumer products these days, reports Consumers Union, and that's not counting stickers such as "sweatshop-free." This explosion of claims comes from companies eager to meet the demand for healthful, environmentally friendly products--or at least to cash in on it. Figuring out which products really are green and which are mere hype can be overwhelming.

Fortunately, there's help. To find out more about the current state of green consumerism, VT' interviewed Joel Makower, who has spent the past 20 years helping consumers become savvier shoppers and getting corporations to become more responsible corporate citizens. The author of The Green Consumer and editor of The Green Business Letter--a monthly publication that offers information to companies working to integrate environmental thinking into their operations--Makower is the "guru of green business practices," according to the Associated Press.

If anybody knows how corporations have responded to this demand for environmentally responsible products, it's Makower. General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, Levi Strauss & Co., Nike and Procter & Gamble have all had the benefit of his counsel. Nov," it's your turn.

q: With more eco-friendly products on the market than ever before, why do consumers these days still find it difficult to make smart choices?

a: Choosing wisely is a challenge precisely because so many companies are competing for this booming market. A lot of them really want to make their products and their manufacturing processes more eco-friendly. They've gotten much more sophisticated about how to acquire raw materials and make and distribute their products.

But companies have also gotten much cleverer about their public images. Some of them will make a tiny alteration in a product and then build a whole advertising campaign around it, even though the change is basically meaningless. On the other hand, a lot of companies that you would never think of as environmentally conscious are really making a difference.

q: For example?

a: Anheuser-Busch figured out a way to make the lids on its beer cans a little smaller. It saves tons of aluminum per year, but you're not likely to see an eco-friendly label on a can of Bud, so this has gone largely unnoticed. That's true of a lot of significant things being done for the environment--because they involve the use of raw materials or a specific process, they don't end up as an attribute of the product itself.

What makes all of this even more confusing for the consumer is that the experts themselves often don't agree about what's green and what's not.

q: Don't agree in what sense?

a: Whether it's better to use paper or plastic, for example--or whether a reusable travel mug that gets lost or tossed every year is preferable to a daily coffee-shop paper cup. Getting a handle on what is or isn't environmentally beneficial can be challenging because few companies understand the environmental consequences of their own operations. Those who do study the question often learn surprising things.

For example, Seventh Generation, a leader in green products, did some research and found that 96 percent of its liquid laundry detergent's contribution to global warming came not in its manufacture or shipment but in its use: Heating the water in which the detergent works best counted for nearly all of its greenhouse gas emissions. So Seventh Generation is developing a cold water liquid laundry detergent.

Coca-Cola conducted a similar study. You might think that the most wasteful energy thing Coca-Cola does is truck all those bottles around the planet--but it turned out to be the refrigeration units in its vending machines and restaurant fountains. That's because they run 24 hours a day. Coke, I understand, is working on a solution involving different technologies. The more you learn about these issues, the more complicated they become.

q: How so?

a: Things aren't always what they seem. It seems logical that the best companies are small businesses whose owners believe passionately in environmentalism and are determined to do things right. But it turns out that a huge, profit-driven corporation--because its environmental footprint is so much bigger--can have a more beneficial impact than the combined efforts of ten small eco-conscious companies. Also, good intentions are important, but they don't always pay off.

q: For instance?

a: Remember biodegradable trash bags? They sounded great, but to break down, they needed sunlight and oxygen, which are nonexistent once a bag is buried in a landfill. Styrofoam egg cartons are technically recyclable, but almost no facilities exist in the United States to recycle them. Pampers diapers supposedly could be composted, but that was based on a limited pilot program. Yet well-intentioned parents believed they were doing a good thing buying them.

On the other hand, companies such as Anheuser-Busch, which many people wouldn't expect to be at all green, actually are environmental leaders in their industries, even if these companies get other things wrong. For example, Nike is by far the most environmentally progressive footwear company in the world, but because the company has a lot of problems in the human-rights area, it goes unnoticed. And McDonald's is way ahead of Burger King and Wendy's in recycling, but because of its contributions to obesity and globalization, McDonald's will never be seen as a green leader.