Buying GreenDoes it really help the environment?

Americans will spend an estimated $500 billion this

year on products and services that claim to be

good for the environment because they contain

non-toxic ingredients or produce little pollution

and waste. While some shoppers buy green to help save the planet,

others are concerned about personal health and safety. Whatever

their motives, eco-consumers are reshaping U.S. markets. To attract

socially conscious buyers, manufacturers are designing new, green

products and packaging, altering production processes and using

sustainable materials. But some of these products may be wastes

of money. Federal regulators are reviewing green labeling claims

to see whether they mislead consumers, while some critics say

that government mandates promoting environmentally preferable

products distort markets and raise prices. Even if green marketing

delivers on its pledges, many environmentalists say that sustainability

is not a matter of buying green but of buying less.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ......................195

BACKGROUND ..................202

CHRONOLOGY ..................203

CURRENT SITUATION ..........208

AT ISSUE ..........................209

OUTLOOK ........................211

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................214

THE NEXT STEP ................215

THISREPORT

The Chevrolet Volt concept car, a plug-in hybrid not yet on the market, will get 150 miles per gallon,

according to General Motors.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • Feb. 29, 2008 • www.cqresearcher.comVolume 18, Number 9 • Pages 193-216

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE ◆ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

194 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

195 • Do carbon offsets slowclimate change?• Should government require green purchases?• Is buying green betterthan buying less?

BACKGROUND

202 Conservation FocusEarly conservationistswarned about environ-mental threats.

205 Environmental AwakeningAfter World War II, humanimpacts on the environ-ment became obvious.

205 Working With MarketsEnvironmentalists found away around Reagan ad-ministration policies.

207 Shopping for ChangeMany advocacy groupsturned to businesses.

CURRENT SITUATION

208 Keeping Standards HighRegulators are scrutinizinggreen definitions.

208 More Mandates?Congress again may consid-er a renewable electricityportfolio standard.

210 Green Is Red-HotGreen marketing is spread-ing across the economy.

OUTLOOK

211 Focus on CarbonThe U.S. is likely to adoptnew greenhouse gas limits.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

196 Boycotting Leads Civic Engagement ActivitiesMany Americans participatedin boycotts in 2002.

197 Average Household SpendsNearly $50,000More than one-third went forhousing.

198 A 21st-Century CarbonGlossaryThe pollutant plays a key rolein today’s environmental efforts.

199 Some Buyers Are GreenerThan OthersA 2006 study classifies con-sumers into five categories.

200 GHG Emissions Still RisingGreenhouse gas emissionsrose 15 percent since 1990.

203 ChronologyKey events since 1960.

204 The Six Sins of ‘Green-washing’Misleading environmentalclaims are common.

206 Guidelines for Eco-mindedConsumersHow to have the most impact.

209 At IssueDoes the United States need arenewable electricity portfoliostandard?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

213 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

214 BibliographySelected sources used.

215 The Next StepAdditional articles.

215 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

BUYING GREEN

Cover: CQ Press/Joe King-Shaw

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Colintcolin@cqpress.com

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Kochkkoch@cqpress.com

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITERS: Thomas J. Billitteri, Marcia Clemmitt, Peter Katel

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Rachel S. Cox,Sarah Glazer, Alan Greenblatt,

Barbara Mantel, Patrick Marshall,Tom Price, Jennifer Weeks

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

A Division ofCongressional Quarterly Inc.

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/PUBLISHER:John A. Jenkins

DIRECTOR, REFERENCE PUBLISHING:Alix Buffon Vance

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.

CHAIRMAN: Paul C. Tash

VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew P. Corty

PRESIDENT/EDITOR IN CHIEF: Robert W. Merry

Copyright © 2008 CQ Press, a division of Congres-

sional Quarterly Inc. (CQ). CQ reserves all copyright

and other rights herein, unless previously specified

in writing. No part of this publication may be re-

produced electronically or otherwise, without prior

written permission. Unauthorized reproduction or

transmission of CQ copyrighted material is a violation

of federal law carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Published weekly, except; (March wk. 4)

(May wk. 3) (July wk. 1) (July wk. 2) (Aug. wk. 2)

(Aug. wk. 3) (Nov. wk. 4) and (Dec. wk. 4), by CQ

Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. An-

nual full-service subscriptions start at $803. For pric-

ing, call 1-800-834-9020, ext. 1906. To purchase a

CQ Researcher report in print or electronic format

(PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737.

Single reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts

and electronic-rights licensing are also available.

Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and ad-

ditional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address

changes to CQ Researcher, 2300 N St., N.W., Suite

800, Washington, DC 20037.

Feb. 29, 2008Volume 18, Number 9

CQResearcher

Feb. 29, 2008 195Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Buying Green

THE ISSUESDuring Lent, many

Christ ians com-memorate the time

that Jesus spent fasting andpraying in the desert, ac-cording to the Bible, beforetaking up his ministry. Mostchurchgoers mark Lent bygiving up alcohol, red meator other luxuries. But thisyear two prominent Britishbishops called on the faith-ful to sacrifice something else:carbon emissions. Throughsteps such as insulating hot-water heaters, sealing draftsin their houses and chang-ing to energy-efficient lightbulbs, the church leadersurged observers to reducetheir carbon footprints — thegreenhouse gases (GHGs)emitted from human activi-ties that contribute to globalclimate change. “We all havea pivotal role to play in tack-ling the stark reality of climatechange,” said Richard Chartres, Bish-op of London. “Together we have aresponsibility to God, to future gen-erations and to our own well-beingon this earth to take action.” 1

Although they may not cast theissue in religious terms, Americans areincreasingly willing to take personalaction to protect the environment. Andwhile conservation has long been as-sociated with sacrifices, such as dri-ving smaller cars and turning downthe heat, today some advocates arguethat a comfortable lifestyle can be eco-friendly. The key, they say, is “buyinggreen” — choosing products designedto reduce pollution, waste and otherharmful impacts.

Activists have long recognized thatconsumer spending, which accountsfor about two-thirds of the $14 trillion

U.S. gross domestic product, can bea powerful influence on national pol-icy. Consumer campaigns often stig-matize a product to highlight suppliers’unacceptable behavior. For example,civil rights activists in the 1950s and’60s boycotted segregated buses inMontgomery, Ala., and held sit-ins atlunch counters that refused to serveAfrican-Americans. Both strategies drewnational attention to segregation in theSouth and built support for new civilrights laws.

Consumers can also reward positivebehavior with their dollars. In the 1970s,the garment workers’ union urgedAmericans to “Look for the union label”that identified clothing made in the Unit-ed States instead of choosing productsfrom low-wage foreign sources. Todayeco-conscious shoppers are buying or-ganically grown food, fuel-efficient cars

and shares in socially respon-sible investment funds that tar-get companies with strong en-vironmental records.

According to the annualGreen Brands Survey, U.S.consumers will spend about$500 billion on environmen-tally friendly products andservices in 2008, double lastyear’s amount. 2 A typicalAmerican family spendsroughly $50,000 each year onfood, clothing, shelter, trans-portation, health care, enter-tainment and other items. 3

(See graph, p. 197.) And con-sumers frequently use buy-ing power to communicatetheir opinions: Boycotting or“buycotting” (deliberatelychoosing) products for polit-ical or ethical reasons areamong the most commonways in which Americans ex-press political views. 4 (Seegraph, p. 196.)

“The consumer movementhas quietly become part of the

fabric of American society,” says Caro-line Heldman, an assistant professor ofpolitics at Occidental College in Los An-geles and author of a forthcoming bookon consumer activism. “Environmentalconcerns are the most important motivesthat drive people to engage in consumeractivism, and with concern about glob-al warming so high, the public is primedto act if environmental groups can findtangible things for people to do.”

However, not all green products de-liver on their promises. Since it firstissued guidelines for environmentalmarketing in 1990, the Federal TradeCommission (FTC) has acted against37 companies for misleading consumerswith green claims. 5 A recent surveyby TerraChoice, an environmentalmarketing firm, suggests that “green-washing” — making misleading envi-ronmental claims about a company or

BY JENNIFER WEEKS

AP P

hoto

/Ale

x B

randon

Actor Brad Pitt is spearheading the construction of 150“affordable and sustainable” homes in hurricane-

battered New Orleans. Activists say the key to protectingthe environment is “buying green” — choosing products

designed to reduce pollution and waste. Consumerspending accounts for about two-thirds of the

$14 trillion U.S. gross domestic product, making eco-consumerism a potentially powerful

influence on policy and the economy.

196 CQ Researcher

product — is becoming more perva-sive as companies bring new greenproducts to market. In a review of1,108 consumer products that madeenvironmental claims, TerraChoicefound that all but one provided someform of false or misleading informa-tion. (See sidebar, p. 204.)

“Green labeling today is whereauto-safety information was in the 1950s.Standards and certification programsare still emerging,” says TerraChoiceVice President Scot Case. “This is un-explored territory, so marketers maybe stretching the truth unintentionally.We think that the sudden interest ingreen just caught a lot of people offguard, and marketers were busy slap-ping buzzwords on packaging. ButFTC’s guidelines are clearly 15 to 20years out of date.”

Many issues are spurring interest ingreen products. In 2007 the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change,an international scientific associationcreated to advise national governments,called global warming unequivocal andconcluded with at least 90 percent cer-tainty that human activities since 1750had warmed the planet. 6 Repeated

warnings about climate change areprompting many companies and indi-viduals to shrink their carbon foot-prints. New products like renewableenergy certificates and carbon offsets,which allow buyers to pay for greenactions that happen elsewhere, makethis task easier. (See glossary, p. 198.)But critics say that these commoditiesare feel-good gestures and do not al-ways promote new, clean technologies.

Recent cases of contaminated foodand toxic ingredients in common house-hold products like pet food and tooth-paste also are spurring consumers toseek out green alternatives. 7 Greenconsumption is a logical response toenvironmental threats, but AndrewSzasz, a sociologist at the Universityof California, Santa Cruz, believes thatit could actually threaten environmentalprogress if consumers see it as a sub-stitute for political action.

“A lot of people get environmental-ly conscious enough to get worried.Then they go buy everything green thatthey can afford and move on to some-thing else,” says Szasz, who calls thetrend an example of “inverted quaran-tine” — citizens protecting themselves

from danger by building barriers insteadof organizing to reduce the threat. “Pres-sure from social movements to taketoxic substances out of our water andair will create more progress than indi-vidual consumer actions,” he argues.

Eco-consumption mirrors a similar trendin the business sector. Many U.S. com-panies are working to green their oper-ations, both to appeal to the fast-grow-ing market and because leaders are findingthat environmental strategies can help cutcosts and make their operations moreefficient. 8 Many large corporations thathave clashed with environmentalists inthe past, such as DuPont, Monsanto andWaste Management, Inc., now highlighttheir commitments to environmental stew-ardship and sustainability. 9

In a notable sign of corporate green-ing, the U.S. Climate Action Partner-ship (a coalition including Alcoa, Gen-eral Electric, Shell and Xerox) called inearly 2007 for prompt mandatory lim-its to slow and reverse the growth ofGHG emissions. Many large companieshave opposed mandatory GHG limitsin the past, arguing that putting a priceon carbon emissions would drive upenergy costs. 10 However, U.S.-CAP

BUYING GREEN

Boycotting Leads Civic Engagement ActivitiesNearly 40 percent of Americans participated in some form of boycotting in 2002, and nearly a quarter signed a petition or volunteered for a non-electoral organization.

Source: Scott Keeter, “Politics and the ‘DotNet’ Generation,” Pew Research Center, May 2006, based on National Civic Engagement Survey 2002

Americans’ Engagement in Public Life

05

101520253035

40%

BoycottedSigned apetition

Took partin protest,march ordemon-stration

Calledradio orTV show

to expressopinion

Contactednewspaper

or magazineto express

opinion

Contacteda publicofficial

Activemember ofgroup or

organization

Volunteeredfor

non-electoralorganization

Communityproblemsolving

Volunteeredfor

politicalgroup

Contributedmoney topoliticalgroup

6%

13%

21% 23%18%

31%

10% 8%4%

23%

38%Percentage

Feb. 29, 2008 197Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

members contended that addressingclimate change “will create more eco-nomic opportunities than risks for theU.S. economy.” 11

Corporate greening appears to bewidespread but hard to measure be-cause there is no authoritative defini-tion of a green business. A recent re-port by Greener World Media foundthat green businesses are makingprogress toward some milestones,such as disclosing their carbon emis-sions and investing in new clean tech-nologies. It also judged, however, thatcorporate America is treading water orfalling behind on other targets, suchas using more renewable energy andemitting fewer GHGs per unit of eco-nomic activity. “Green business hasshifted from a movement to a market.But there is much, much more to do,”the authors asserted. 12

As environmentalists, business ex-ecutives and consumers ponder whatbuying green can accomplish, here aresome issues they are considering:

Do carbon offsets slow climatechange?

Curbing climate change is difficult be-cause greenhouse gases, especially car-bon dioxide (CO2), are produced frommany routine activities like powering ap-pliances and driving cars. Every year theaverage American generates roughly 10to 20 metric tons of CO2 through day-to-day activities, mainly through homeenergy use and transportation. 13

Consumers can shrink their carbonfootprints through steps such as addinginsulation to their houses, buying moreenergy-efficient appliances and usingpublic transit for some trips instead ofcars. But if people want to do more,or have carbon-intensive lifestyles be-cause they own large homes or travelfrequently, they can buy carbon offsetsfrom brokers, who use the money tofund projects elsewhere that reduceGHG emissions. Pollution offsets dateback to the mid-1970s, when the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA)

allowed industries to build new emis-sion sources in regions with serious airpollution if they made larger reduc-tions at existing sources nearby. Thispolicy was written into the Clean AirAct in 1977 and later expanded to letcompanies earn and trade emission-reduction credits if they cut emissionsbelow thresholds required by law.

“Offsets have an important role toplay as we try to shrink our carbonfootprint,” says Mike Burnett, execu-tive director of the Climate Trust, anOregon nonprofit created to implementa 1997 state law that requires newpower plants to offset some CO2 emis-

sions. The trust invests money frompower plants, as well as businessesand individuals, in energy efficiency,renewable energy and other low-car-bon projects to offset clients’ emis-sions. “Oregon has pledged to reduceits GHG emissions 75 percent below1990 levels by 2050. Investing in high-quality offsets can help us address cli-mate change at the lowest overall cost,which will leave more money for otherpriorities,” says Burnett.

The Climate Trust uses strict criteriato screen potential investments. Emis-sion reductions must be rigorously quan-tified, and sponsors have to show that

Average Household Spends Nearly $50,000

The average household spent $48,398 in 2006, including more than one-third on housing and 18 percent on transportation. According to a recent survey, U.S. consumers will spend about $500 billion on environmentally friendly products and services in 2008, double last year’s amount.

Note: Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Green Brands Survey, 2008

Average Household Expenditures, 2006

Health care

Entertainment

Apparel and services

Cash contributions

Housing

33.8%

Transportation

17.6%Food

12.6%

Personal insurance and

pensions

5.7%

4.9%

3.9%

3.9%6.6%

Education, personal care products and services, alcohol, tobacco products, reading, other

10.9%

198 CQ Researcher

offset projects would not happen with-out funding from the trust — a con-cept called “additionality” to indicatethat resulting GHG reductions must beadditional to business as usual. For ex-ample, although installing undergroundsystems at landfills to capture methane(a potent greenhouse gas producedwhen waste decomposes) is a populartype of offset, the trust would not in-vest in a methane-capture project if reg-ulations already required the landfill op-erator to control methane emissions.

Not all providers are as strict. A 2006study commissioned by Clean Air-CoolPlanet (CACP), a New England non-profit group, found that the market forvoluntary carbon offsets was largely un-regulated and had no broadly acceptedstandards for defining or measuring off-sets. Prices to offset a ton of carbon var-ied widely, as did the types of offsetsavailable and the amount of informationcompanies provided to customers. 14

“There clearly are good offsets andnot-so-good ones on the market, so theproblem for buyers is finding the good

ones,” says CACP Chief Executive Offi-cer Adam Markham. “If they don’t buygood ones, they’re not making a dif-ference, and they’re wasting their money.”

A popular strategy that has raisedquestions is paying to plant trees. Grow-ing plants absorb CO2 from the atmos-phere to make plant tissue, and treesalso offer many other benefits, such asstabilizing soils and providing habitat foranimals and birds. Movie stars Brad Pittand Jake Gyllenhall, along with HomeDepot, Delta Airlines and other corpo-rations, have funded tree-planting pro-jects from suburban Atlanta to Bhutan.

But trees don’t always help the en-vironment. Planting non-native speciescan soak up local water supplies andreplace other valuable ecosystems suchas prairie grassland. Moreover, calculat-ing how much carbon various types offorests take up is an inexact science.And since trees eventually release car-bon when they die and decompose (orare logged or burned down), they cyclecarbon quickly and only remove it fromthe atmosphere for a matter of decades.

In contrast, today’s oil, coal and natur-al gas supplies represent much morepermanent carbon reserves that formedwhen carbon-based plant materialswere compressed in ancient, under-ground fossil beds. Burning these fos-sil fuels permanently releases carbonstores that have been sequestered forthousands of years and will not be recre-ated in the foreseeable future. 15

“Forest offsets tend to be more riskybecause we know less about how muchcarbon they displace than we do for en-ergy projects, and they’re less likely tobe permanent,” says Markham. Instead,he prefers energy projects because it’seasier to quantify the emissions that theydisplace and demonstrate additionality.“Wind power and methane-capture pro-jects tend to be pretty high-quality in-vestments,” Markham says.

But nothing is guaranteed. After thefor-profit broker TerraPass provided off-sets to help green the 2007 AcademyAwards ceremony, an investigation byBusiness Week magazine found that sixprojects that generated TerraPass offsets

BUYING GREEN

Carbon footprint — The sum of all greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions caused during a specified time period by a person’sactivities, a company’s operations or the production, use anddisposal of a product.

Carbon neutral — Operating in a way that does not pro-duce any net addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. For bothbusinesses and individuals, becoming carbon neutral typicallyinvolves two steps: reducing GHG emissions that they gener-ate directly, through steps such as conserving energy; and buy-ing carbon offsets that equal whatever direct GHG emissionsthey cannot eliminate.

Carbon offset — An activity that reduces GHG emissions,such as planting trees to take up atmospheric carbon dioxideor producing energy from carbon-free fuels like wind and solarenergy. Buying carbon offsets is a way of contracting out GHGemission reductions, typically because the offset project can re-duce emissions more cheaply than the buyer can.

Carbon trading — Buying and selling GHG emission al-lowances (government permits to release a specific quantity of

pollution) or emission-reduction credits, which may be issuedby government under mandatory regulations or created by com-panies and individuals through voluntary trading schemes.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) — Heat-trapping gases that ab-sorb solar energy in the atmosphere and warm earth’s surface.Six major GHGs are controlled under the Kyoto Protocol, butsince carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant and causesthe most warming, companies and governments convert theirtotal emissions into CO2 equivalents.

Renewable energy certificates (RECs) — Certificates thatrepresent the environmental attributes of electricity producedfrom renewable sources and can be sold separately from theelectricity itself. Investors can buy RECs to support green en-ergy whether or not they are located close to the source. Somecompanies may market themselves as “powered by green en-ergy,” even though they use electricity from coal- or gas-firedpower plants, because they buy RECs to equal their total elec-tric power usage (thus helping to put that amount of carbon-free energy into the electric power grid).

A 21st-Century Carbon GlossaryThe pollutant plays a key role in today’s environmental efforts.

Feb. 29, 2008 199Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

would have taken place in any case.One, a methane-capture system installedby Waste Management, Inc. at an Arkansaslandfill, was initiated in response to pres-sure from state regulators. TerraPass’s in-vestment was “just icing on the cake”for another project, a county official inNorth Carolina told Business Week. 16

“There are a lot of new entrants intothe market, so some offerings probablyaren’t as robust as others, and it’s caus-ing some confusion,” says Burnett. “Ifthis sector doesn’t become more stan-dardized within the next five years, gov-ernment will have to step in. We don’tnecessarily need a single federal scheme,but it would be very useful to have afederally sanctioned panel of experts whocould review offset products.”

Beyond the characteristics of specif-ic projects, some critics argue that car-bon offsets don’t reduce climate changebecause they let people keep doinghigh-carbon activities, which the offsetscounterbalance at best. Worse, offsetsmay serve as cover for carbon-intensiveactivities. For example, a recent reportfrom the Transnational Institute in Am-sterdam, the Netherlands, points out thatBritish Airways offers passengers an op-tion to buy carbon offsets for their flightsbut is also pushing to expand Britishairports and short-haul flights, whichwill increase the company’s total GHGemissions. 17

“Offsets may be tarnished by revela-tions of practices that aren’t credible.That would be a problem, because thesetools can be quite useful if they’re ap-plied effectively,” says Thomas Tieten-berg, a professor of economics at ColbyCollege in Waterville, Maine. “The con-sumer offset market is facing an impor-tant moment in terms of its credibility.It needs to get some agreement aboutwhat the standards are.”

Should government require greenpurchases?

Government officials often want toboost demand for green products,even if they cost somewhat more, be-

cause these goods reduce pollution,conserve energy or keep waste out oflandfills. One option is to mandate theuse of green goods and services. Butcritics argue that government interfer-ence distorts markets and that settingenvironmental performance standardsmay deliver inferior products.

Renewable energy is perhaps themost widely mandated green com-modity. As of January 2008, 26 statesand the District of Columbia had adopt-

ed renewable portfolio standards (RPSs)requiring electricity suppliers to gen-erate certain fractions of their powerfrom renewable fuels like wind, solarenergy and biomass. 18 Advocateswould like to see a national renewable-energy requirement, but so far Congresshas failed to enact one.

Most recently, in 2007 the House passedan energy bill that included a 15 percentRPS requirement by 2020, with utilitiesallowed to meet up to 4 percent of their

Some Buyers Are Greener Than Others

A 2006 study by the Natural Marketing Institute classified adult U.S. consumers into five categories based on their attitudes toward ethical consumption.

Note: Percentages add to more than 100 due to rounding.

Source: LOHAS Forum, “Understanding the LOHAS Consumer: The Rise of Ethical Consumerism,” www.lohas.com

25%

16%

23%

23%

14%

LOHAS (Lifestyles of health and sustainability) — Make purchases based on belief systems and values, including environmental protection and social responsibility.

Naturalites — Are interested in natural and healthy prod-ucts, but their choices are driv-en more strongly by personal and family health concerns than by broader envi-ronmental views.

Drifters — May believe in protecting the environment, but often think that measuring the impact of their consumer choices is too hard or don’t know how to do it.

Conventionals — May recycle or give money to environmental groups, but do not shop based on a cohesive set of values; sometimes buy green products, especially items that offer economic savings.

Unconcerneds — Do not consider social or environmental values in buying decisions.

200 CQ Researcher

targets through energy conservation. Sup-porters argued that the measure wouldreduce air pollutants and greenhousegas emissions from fossil fuel combus-tion and spur the growth of a domes-tic renewable-energy industry. But theprovision was dropped after critics chargedthat it would raise electricity prices andpenalize regions with fewer renewableresources. (See “At Issue,” p. 209.)

“The market should be allowed towork things out. We don’t support hav-ing the government impose a mandatethat says, “Thou shalt do this,” saysKeith McCoy, vice president for ener-gy and resources policy at the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers. “Utilitiesand regulators in RPS states are look-ing at the right fuel mixes for their re-gions, but we need to take into ac-count what’s possible in different partsof the country.”

RPS advocates want a national stan-dard to push states that have beenless aggressive in developing renew-able energy. A national RPS “is ab-solutely achievable,” said Rep. TomUdall, D-N.M., a sponsor of the mea-sure, during House debate. “[B]ut thefull potential for renewable electricity

will be left unrealized without the adop-tion of a federal program to enhancethe efforts of these states.” 19

Governments can also ensure thatproducts are at least somewhat greenby establishing content or performancerequirements. Measures such asbuilding codes and energy-efficiencystandards for appliances are one wayto remedy a common problem: Manybuyers don’t know much about prod-ucts, so it’s hard to choose the besteven if they want to. “If you’re walk-ing around a house looking at it, youhave no idea what kind of insulationis in the walls or how efficient theheating system is, but building codesset some basic thresholds for perfor-mance,” says Colby College econo-mist Tietenberg.

Forcing manufacturers to complywith new standards may spur techni-cal advances, but it can also challengebusinesses to meet the new goals.When new energy-efficiency standardsfor top-loading washing machines wentinto effect in 2007, Consumer Reportsgave low performance ratings to thefirst models that it tested. The Com-petitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a

think tank that opposes excessive reg-ulation, accused the Energy Depart-ment of ruining a once-dependablehome appliance. “Send your under-wear to the undersecretary,” CEI urgeddissatisfied consumers. 20

“If these technologies really are thatgood, we shouldn’t need laws to forcethem down people’s throats,” says CEIGeneral Counsel Sam Kazman. “Wedon’t think that promoting energy ef-ficiency is an appropriate role for gov-ernment, but if that’s the goal, the wayto do it is with an energy tax, whichwould reduce energy use and createincentives to develop energy-savingtechnologies. One big attraction ofregulations is that the public doesn’tsee them as tax increases — peopleperceive them as relatively cost-free.”

Today, however, those energy-efficientwashers look better. “What a differencea year makes,” Consumer Reports com-mented in February 2008. The besthigh-efficiency top-loading washerswere performing better, testers found,and CR pointed out that high-efficiencymodels could end up costing the sameor less than standard machines overtheir lifetime when energy savings werefactored in. 21

Posing the issue as a choice be-tween a free market or regulations ismisleading, says Bill Prindle, deputydirector of the American Council foran Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).“The real issue is what the rules shouldbe for market players. When you setboundaries and targets, manufacturerscome up with very ingenious solutionsthat give customers great value,” Prindlecontends. He also notes that manufac-turers and conservation advocates havenegotiated some two dozen energy-efficiency standards since 2005 thatsubsequently were enacted into law.“These are largely consensus-basedagreements. They wouldn’t have passedotherwise,” Prindle argues.

Another way to promote green tech-nologies is through voluntary labelingprograms that identify environmentally

BUYING GREEN

GHG Emissions Still Rising

Greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 15 percent since 1990, reaching over 7 billion metric tons in 2006.

Total GreenhouseGas Emissions, 1990-2006

Source: Energy Information Administration

6,000

7,000

8,000

20062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

(million metric tons)

Feb. 29, 2008 201Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

preferable products. The Energy Starprogram, administered by EPA and theDepartment of Energy, was launchedin 1992 in response to a Clean Air Actprovision directing EPA to find non-regulatory strategies for reducing airpollution. Energy Star defines superi-or energy efficiency standards formore than 50 types of residential, com-mercial and industrial equipment, in-cluding consumerelectronics, heatingand cooling systemsand lighting. 22 EPAestimates that over 2billion products withEnergy Star labelswere sold in 2006,saving 170 billionkilowatt-hours ofelectricity, or enoughto power more than15 million averageAmerican house-holds for a year. 23

Another program,Leadership in Energyand EnvironmentalDesign (LEED), wasdeveloped by the U.S.Green Building Coun-cil to identify highly energy-efficientbuildings with extremely healthy in-door environments. 24 More than 800buildings in the U.S. and worldwidehave received LEED certification byscoring points on a fixed scale for fea-tures like energy and water conserva-tion and indoor air quality. Many largecorporations and universities have builtLEED buildings to demonstrate envi-ronmental commitments.

Labeling programs complement re-quirements to use green products, saysTietenberg. “Mandates make sense asa floor, but you don’t want to stopthere. Labels like LEED provide some-thing that performs above the mini-mum,” he says. “They let buyers knowthat they are getting a certain valuefor their investment and communicatethat fact to other people.”

CEI’s Kazman argues that green la-beling programs can also be problemat-ic. “Consumers don’t get the full story iflabels omit repair issues and the risk thatvery new technologies will have prob-lems,” he says. “And once items earnstars, there’s a risk that the next step willbe to mandate them. But we’d ratherhave government give advice and makerecommendations than impose mandates.”

Is buying green better for the en-vironment than buying less?

Most observers agree that today’sgreen consumption boom signals themainstreaming of environmental val-ues. In the 1980s eco-friendly prod-ucts like soy milk and recycled paperwere of uneven quality and wereviewed as niche goods for a smallsubset of dedicated customers. Todaymegastores like Wal-Mart and Targetoffer green cleaning supplies, organicfood and energy-efficient light bulbs.

“We’ve seen green waves before, buttoday there’s better understanding of en-vironmental issues, higher quality prod-ucts and more consumer understanding,”says Case at TerraChoice EnvironmentalMarketing. “This issue has penetrated theheads of the average consumer and busi-ness executive.”

With more consumers buying moreearth-friendly products, some advocatessay that environmental protection nolonger has to mean scaling back afflu-ent lifestyles. Instead, they assert, we canshop our way to sustainability. “We allneed to be presented with better prod-uct choices that enable us to maintainthe way of life to which we’re accus-tomed without overtaxing the planet’s

ability to sustain it,” saidentrepreneur and satelliteradio host Josh Dorfman,the self-styled “Lazy En-vironmentalist,” in a 2007interview. “As a nation,we don’t really want todeal with [global warm-ing]. We have neither thepolitical leadership nor thepolitical will, which is whyI think that for now theenvironmental solutionspresented have to be botheffective and painless.” 25

This is a new per-spective for the environ-mental movement, whichhas long argued that ram-pant economic growthand high consumption

are root causes of environmental harm.Not all environmentalists agree that so-called checkbook environmentalism cansave the planet. For one thing, criticsargue, the green product boom hashad little impact so far on U.S. green-house gas emissions. Since 1990 theemissions intensity of the U.S. econo-my (the amount of GHG emissionsproduced for every dollar of econom-ic activity) has declined, but total GHGemissions have increased nearly everyyear due to overall economic growth.(See graph, p. 200.)

“True, as companies and countriesget richer they can afford more efficientmachinery that makes better use of fos-sil fuel, like the hybrid Honda Civic Idrive,” writes bestselling author BillMcKibben. “But if your appliances havegotten more efficient, there are also far

Growing numbers of eco-conscious shoppers are buying organicallygrown food today. Demand for organic and natural groceries hasmade Whole Foods the nation’s largest natural food market chain.

Get

ty I

mag

es/J

ust

in S

ulliv

an

202 CQ Researcher

more of them: The furnace is betterthan it used to be, but the average sizeof the house it heats has doubled since1950. The 60-inch TV? The always-oncable modem? No need for you to dothe math — the electric company doesit for you, every month.” 26

Complicating the issue, many greenliving guides fail to distinguish be-tween actions that have a major im-pact, like insulating your house, andthose with smaller effects such as buy-ing a natural-fiber shower curtain ordog leash. “People tend not to sortthrough which choices are importantand which are insignificant. They viewmost actions as equally important,” saysWarren Leon, coauthor of The Con-sumer’s Guide to Effective EnvironmentalChoices and director of the Massachu-setts Renewable Energy Trust. 27 (Seesidebar, p. 206.) “I worry about prod-ucts that are sold as green, often bypromoters who sincerely believe inthem, but that either don’t work wellor don’t have a serious impact. Mediocreor trivial green products will turn con-sumers off in the long run,” he warns.

“Greenwashing” further undercuts theimpact of buying green by marketingproducts with vague claims like “AllNatural,” “Earth Smart” and other labelsthat are too general to document whethergoods will help the environment or not.Some consumers analyze these sloganscritically, but many are likely to takethem at face value. According to a 2006study by the Natural Marketing Insti-tute, LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health andSustainability) buyers, who make pur-chases based on belief systems and val-ues, including environmental protectionand social responsibility, account foronly about 16 percent of U.S. consumers.(See graph, p. 199.)

Although LOHAS consumers are arelatively small segment of the mar-ket, green business experts say thatthey have significant influence. “LOHASconsumers push the envelope. They’realways testing the boundaries, andthey make decisions for the sake of

the mission,” says Ted Ning, who di-rects an annual business gathering inColorado called the LOHAS Forum.“Once their items become mainstream,they move on to the next issue. Forexample, instead of just buying or-ganic food or locally grown food,now they’re choosing food based onits carbon footprint.”

LOHAS buyers also size up com-panies critically, says Ning. “They ex-pect a lot of in-depth information toshow whether products are authentic.Blogs and Web sites give people lotsof ways to communicate, so if com-panies don’t make that data available,there’s an assumption that they havesomething to hide. And LOHAS con-sumers are evangelists, so they’re proudto share their information. If you geton their wrong side, they’ll bad-mouthyou to death.”

Businesses are keenly interested inLOHAS consumers, who represent anestimated $209 billion market forgoods including organic food, personaland home care products, clean ener-gy technologies, alternative transporta-tion and ecotourism. 28 But it’s notclear that this group’s preferences cansteer the entire U.S. economy towardsustainability.

“Consumers are most interested inhigh-quality, affordable products. That’sstill a larger driver than other envi-ronmental considerations, althoughgreen aspects often are tie-breakers,”says TerraChoice’s Case. Recent pollsshow that while Americans are in-creasingly willing to make lifestylechanges to protect the environment,they prefer easy actions like recyclingover more demanding steps like re-ducing their carbon footprints. 29

“Green labeling and marketing aremarket-based instruments that can beadopted quickly as our environmentalknowledge grows, but in the long termthey’ll be seen as transitional steps,”says Case. “Ultimately, we’ll addressthese issues with other mechanisms likecap-and-trade systems and taxes.”

BACKGROUNDConservation Focus

B efore the United States was a cen-tury old, early conservationists began

to warn about threats to precious landsand resources. In his 1854 classic Walden,Henry David Thoreau decried loggersand railroads that encroached on his for-est retreat. In 1876 naturalist John Muirwrote that California’s forests, which hecalled “God’s first temples,” were “beingburned and cut down and wasted likea field of unprotected grain, and oncedestroyed can never be wholly restoredeven by centuries of persistent andpainstaking cultivation.” 30

Congress began putting lands underfederal protection with the creation ofYellowstone National Park in 1872. Italso established scientific agencies tomanage natural resources, including theU.S. Fisheries Commission (later the Fish& Wildlife Service) in 1871 and the U.S.Geological Survey and Division of Forestry(later the Forest Service) in 1879.

But politicians mainly sought to de-velop and use resources, not to protectthem in their natural states. To settle theWest, Congress passed laws like the1872 Mining Law, which allowedprospectors to buy mining rights onpublic lands for $5 per acre, and the1878 Timber and Stone Act, whichmade land that was “unfit for farming”available for $2.50 per acre for timberand stone resources. These statutes oftenallowed speculators and large corpora-tions to exploit public resources at farless than fair market value. 31

Environmental advocates formedmany important conservation groups be-fore 1900, including the AppalachianMountain Club, American Forests andthe Sierra Club. Their members, main-ly affluent outdoorsmen, focused onpreserving land for hunting, fishing and

BUYING GREEN

Continued on p. 204

Feb. 29, 2008 203Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Chronology1960-1980Environmentalists use lobbying,litigation and citizen action tocurb pollution. . . . Congress im-poses new regulations on busi-nesses.

1967Congress enacts Clean Air Act.

1969Congress passes National Envi-ronmental Policy Act, requiringenvironmental-impact studies forfederal projects with potentiallysignificant effects on the environment.

1970Millions of Americans celebrateEarth Day on April 22. . . . Con-gress establishes EnvironmentalProtection Agency and expandsClean Air Act.

1973Endangered Species Act enacted.

1974Safe Drinking Water Act enacted.

1978Homeowners in New York’s LoveCanal neighborhood force federalgovernment to pay for evacuatingthem from houses built atop toxic-waste dump.

1979Three Mile Island nuclear powerplant in Pennsylvania partially meltsdown, stalling the growth of nuclearenergy.

1980Superfund law assigns liabilityand fund cleanup at hazardous-waste sites. . . . Ronald Reaganis elected president on platformcalling for reducing government’srole.

1980-2000Global climate change emergesas major environmental issue.

1987Twenty-four nations initially signMontreal Protocol, pledging tophase out chemicals that depleteEarth’s ozone layer; dozens moresign in subsequent years.

1989Exxon Valdez runs aground inAlaska, contaminating more than5,000 kilometers of pristine coastwith oil and killing thousands ofanimals and birds.

1990Congress creates market-based allowance trading system to reduceemissions that cause acid rain. . . .Federal Trade Commission (FTC)brings first enforcement case againstdeceptive green marketing, challeng-ing claims for “pesticide free” pro-duce sold by Vons supermarkets.

1992Delegates to the Earth Summit inRio de Janeiro, Brazil, adopt firstinternational pledge to cut green-house gas (GHG) emissions. . . .FTC issues marketing guides forgreen products and services.

1997International conference approvesKyoto Protocol requiring GHG re-ductions but lets wealthy nationsmeet some of their obligationswith offset projects in developingcountries; U.S. signs but fails toratify pact.

1998U.S. Green Building Councillaunches Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) pro-gram for rating energy-efficient,healthy buildings.

2000British Petroleum re-brands itselfBP and pledges to go “BeyondPetroleum” by investing in cleanenergy.

•

2001-2007As environmental concerngrows, more companies offereco-friendly products. Skepticswarn of “greenwashing.”

2000Department of Agriculture issuesfinal rule for certifying organicfood.

2001President George W. Bush rejectsmandatory controls on GHG emis-sions. . . . Following the Sept. 11terrorist attacks, Bush urges Ameri-cans to shop to help fend offeconomic recession.

2005General Electric launches “Eco-magination” advertising campaignto demonstrate its environmentalcommitment. . . . Kyoto Protocolenters into force, including creditsfor carbon offset projects in de-veloping countries. . . . EuropeanUnion members begin tradingcarbon credits.

2006Democrats recapture control ofCongress, increasing support forpolicies to boost renewable energyand curb greenhouse gas emissions.

2007FTC initiates review of greenmarketing guidelines and envi-ronmental products, includingcarbon offsets. . . . Toyota Priushybrids surpass top-selling sport-utility vehicles.

204 CQ Researcher

expeditions. One notable exception, theMassachusetts Audubon Society, wasfounded in 1896 by two Boston societywomen who opposed killing exotic birdsto provide feathers for fashionable ladies’hats. Within a year the group persuadedthe state legislature to ban commercein wild bird feathers. Its work laterspurred Congress to pass national legis-lation and support a treaty protectingmigratory birds. 32

Although early groups won somenotable victories, most conservationwork was mandated by the federalgovernment. Congress and PresidentsTheodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) andWilliam Howard Taft (1909-1913) setaside many important tracts of land asparks and monuments. Congress cre-ated the National Park Service in 1916to manage these new preserves. Butnational policy also spurred harmfuldevelopment, such as federally funded

irrigation projects to help settlers farmin dry Western states. With governmentagencies urging them on, farmersplowed up the Great Plains, destroyingtheir natural grass cover and helpingto create the Dust Bowl when droughtstruck in the 1930s.

During the long tenure of Presi-dent Franklin D. Roosevelt, (1933-1945),several important conservation pro-grams were launched even as Westerndam building accelerated. The Civilian

BUYING GREEN

Continued from p. 202

Aperfectly green product may not exist, but some cer-tainly are much greener than others, according to arecent study by Pennsylvania-based TerraChoice Envi-

ronmental Marketing. 1 It examined 1,018 consumer productsthat made a total of 1,753 environmental claims and found thatevery product but one offered false or misleading information.The firm identified six broad categories of misleading envi-ronmental claims, or “greenwashing”:

• The hidden trade-off: Marketing a product as eco-friendlybased on a single green attribute like recycled content, with-out addressing other issues such as where its materials comefrom or how much energy is required to produce it.

• No proof: Making environmental claims without provid-ing information backing them up at the point of purchaseor on the manufacturer’s Web site.

• Vagueness: Touting products based on claims that aretoo vague to have any real meaning, such as “Non-Toxic,”“All Natural” or “Earth-Friendly.”

• Irrelevance: Offering a claim that is true but not impor-tant or helpful to consumers. For example, some prod-ucts are labeled “CFC-Free,” but ozone-destroying chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) have been outlawed in the U.S. forseveral decades.

• Lesser of two evils: Selling a product with an environ-mental label even though it belongs to a class of goodsthat is generally bad for consumers’ health or the envi-ronment, such as organic cigarettes.

• Fibbing: Providing false information or claiming a certi-fication, such as USDA Organic, that the product has notactually earned.

Greenwashing matters for several reasons, the study contends.First, consumers will waste money and may conclude that envi-ronmentally friendly products do not work. Second, greenwash-ing takes business away from legitimate green products. Thismakes it harder for honest manufacturers to compete and slowsthe rate at which high-quality products penetrate the market.

Indeed, greenwashing was a factor in the demise of an earlywave of green consumerism in the 1980s, says TerraChoice VicePresident Scot Case, but more scrutiny this time may detercheaters. “We’ll know if things are improving when we repeatthe study in a few months,” says Case. “We’re hopeful that at-tention from the media and the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]will help.”

Consumers who want to ensure that they are getting greenproducts have several options. First, they can look for seals of ap-proval from organizations such as EcoLogo and Green Seal, bothof which certify green products based on multiple criteria. 2 Theseeco-labeling programs are standardized under a set of principlesdeveloped by the International Organization for Standards.

Consumers also can check product labels and manufactur-ers’ Web sites for information that supports green marketingclaims. “Companies should be very careful not to claim thatthings are green, only that they are greener,” says Case. “Theyshouldn’t suggest that just because they’ve addressed one issue,it’s a green product.” The FTC has published guidance to helpconsumers sort through green advertising claims. 3

Although greenwashing may be pervasive today, Terra-Choice argues that green marketing can be a positive force.“[G]reen marketers and consumers are learning about the pit-falls of greenwashing together,” the report states. “This is ashared problem and opportunity. When green marketing over-comes these challenges, consumers will be better able to trustgreen claims, and genuinely environmentally preferable prod-ucts will penetrate their markets more rapidly and deeply. Thiswill be great for consumers, great for business and great forthe planet.” 4

1 TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, “The ‘Six Sins of Greenwashing,”November 2007, www.terrachoice.com.2 For more information see www.ecologo.org and www.greenseal.org.3 U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “Sorting Out ‘Green’ Advertising Claims,”www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/general/gen02.pdf.4 TerraChoice, op. cit., p. 8.

The Six Sins of ‘Greenwashing’Misleading environmental claims are common.

Feb. 29, 2008 205Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Conservation Corps (CCC), also knownas “Roosevelt’s Tree Army,” hired morethan 3 million unemployed Americansto build fire towers, plant trees andimprove parks across the nation. Morethan 8 million people worked for theWorks Progress Administration on pro-jects including roads, bridges andpark lodges.

These were top-down programs,writes anthropologist Michael John-son: “The federal government definedthe problems, defined the solutionsand then ‘fixed’ the problems by em-ploying lots of people . . . the aver-age citizen had an almost blind trustin the federal definition of problemsand solutions.” Moreover, while theCCC and other initiatives treatedsymptoms such as soil erosion, theyfailed to address human actions likeplowing and over-grazing that causedthe problems. 33

Environmental Awakening

A s the economy grew rapidly afterWorld War II, human impacts on

the environment became obvious. Pol-lutants from power plants, factories andpassenger cars mixed in the atmosphereto create toxic smog. Offshore oil-drillingplatforms appeared along California’sscenic coastline. And Rachel Carson’s1962 book Silent Spring warned thatwidespread use of pesticides threatenedecosystems and human health.

Alarmed environmentalists beganfighting back. In 1955 they rallied againsta hydropower dam that would haveflooded part of Dinosaur National Mon-ument in Utah. A decade later, a coali-tion led by the Sierra Club helped toblock a dam that would have inun-dated the Grand Canyon. Conserva-tionists won a big victory in 1965 whena federal court allowed them to sueagainst a proposed electric power planton Storm King Mountain in New York’sHudson Valley. 34 Courts previously haddecided such siting issues on narrow

technical grounds but in this case heldthat groups not directly involved indevelopment projects could interveneto protect scenic resources. Litigationquickly became an important tool forenvironmental advocates.

Congress passed several key envi-ronmental laws in the 1960s, includingthe Wilderness Act (1964), which creat-ed a process for protecting land perma-nently from development, and the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act (1969),which subjected major federal actionssuch as building dams to environmental-impact studies. But new disastersspurred calls for further action. In1969 an offshore oil well near SantaBarbara, Calif., ruptured and spilledoil along 30 miles of coastline. Fivemonths later Ohio’s Cuyahoga Rivercaught fire when flammable chemicalson its surface ignited.

On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day,more than 20 million Americans attend-ed rallies and teach-ins designed to forceenvironmental issues onto the nationalagenda. Activists followed up with lob-bying and lawsuits. In response Con-gress passed a flurry of new laws, in-cluding an expanded Clean Air Act (1970),the Endangered Species Act (1973), theSafe Drinking Water Act (1974), the Re-sources Conservation and Recovery Act(1976) and the Clean Water Act (1977).

“Citizens across the country becameaware of what was happening to theirphysical surroundings,” writes journal-ist Philip Shabecoff. “Equally impor-tant, they also acquired a faith — notalways requited — that in the Amer-ican democracy change was possible,that they could act as individuals andcommunities to obtain relief from theenvironmental dangers with which theywere threatened.” 35 Slogans like “Re-duce, reuse, recycle” and “Think glob-ally, act locally” underlined the im-portance of personal action.

While national groups pressured Con-gress and the new EPA, grassroots ac-tivists attacked local problems. In 1978residents of the Love Canal neighbor-

hood in upstate New York, led by house-wife Lois Gibbs, forced the federal gov-ernment to pay for moving them outof homes that had been built on topof an industrial-waste site. Groups withnames like the Abalone Alliance sprangup to oppose new nuclear power plants,blocking some and delaying others.

Businesses and free-market advocatespushed back. President Ronald Reaganwas elected in 1980 on a platform thatcalled for reforming regulation and en-suring that benefits from environmen-tal controls justified their costs. 36 Dur-ing the campaign Reagan argued thatair pollution had been “substantially con-trolled” in the United States and thatlaws like the Clean Air Act were forc-ing factories to shut down. 37 When heinstalled anti-regulation appointees likeInterior Secretary James G. Watt andEPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch,many environmentalists worried thattheir recent victories would be reversed.

Working With Markets

A s the Reagan administration learned,most Americans did not support

a broad rollback of environmental laws.Public backlash against proposals suchas selling off millions of acres of pub-lic lands drove Watt and Gorsuch fromoffice. But environmentalists still faceda Republican administration and Senatemajority that opposed new controls.

In response some groups beganworking with the private sector anddeveloping market-based policies.Proponents of this environmental “thirdwave” contended that if regulationswere more cost-effective and flexible,industries could be persuaded to cutpollution instead of having to be forced.

Their most visible success was pro-moting tradable permits to cut pollu-tion. EPA had started experimenting inthe 1970s with programs that allowedcompanies to earn and trade credits forreducing air pollutants such as carbonmonoxide and particulates. Business

206 CQ Researcher

leaders preferred this approach becauseinstead of mandating specific controltechnologies, it let them decide howand where to make reductions. For ex-

ample, instead of installing pollution con-trols a company might make its opera-tions more efficient or switch to cleanermethods or products.

When Congress amended the CleanAir Act in 1990, some environmen-talists supported a cap-and-trade sys-tem to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2)

BUYING GREEN

F or many consumers, the biggest challenge of buyinggreen is not finding earth-friendly goods but figuring outwhich choices have the biggest environmental impact.

Green buying choices can be complicated, and green productsoften cost more than conventional alternatives.

Moreover, as journalist Samuel Fromartz observes in his his-tory of the organic food business, few shoppers buy everythingfrom premium suppliers like Whole Foods. Instead, regardlessof income level, they buy organic in categories that matter tothem, such as milk for their children, and choose other itemsof lower concern from conventional or discount stores. 1

To help eco-minded consumersfocus on purchases with the biggestenvironmental impact, The Consumer’sGuide to Effective EnvironmentalChoices identifies the biggest envi-ronmental problems related tohousehold consumption: air and waterpollution, global warming and habi-tat alteration. Then, by quantifyingenvironmental impacts and linkingthese impacts to consumer productsand services, authors Michael Brow-er and Warren Leon identify threehousehold activity areas that accountfor most of these impacts: food, house-hold operations and transportation.

To address these issues, Browerand Leon urge consumers to take stepssuch as driving fuel-efficient, low-pol-luting cars, eating less meat and mak-ing their homes energy-efficient. 2

“A green purchase can have atleast three results,” says Leon. “First,it can favor a lower-impact productover conventional options. Second, itmay allow you to consume fewer re-sources over the lifetime of the prod-uct. That’s why energy choices are important — not only doesenergy use have significant environmental impacts, but you willuse less energy every time you turn that appliance on.”

As another example, consider a gardener who spends sev-eral hundred dollars on outdoor furniture. If she choosesitems made from sustainably harvested wood, she may pre-serve several trees in a threatened forest. But if she uses the

same money to buy a backyard composting bin, she can di-vert hundreds of pounds of food waste from landfills (whichproduce greenhouse gases as wastes break down and canleak and contaminate groundwater) during the years that sheuses the bin.

Third, Leon argues, some green purchases can favor new en-vironmentally friendly technologies or industries with big growthpotential. “By joining the early adapters who reinforce demandfor a new product, you can help create a perception that it’s asuccess,” he says. However, it is important to note that someproducts will never become market phenomena because they

have small niche markets. Only a small frac-tion of the Americans who drink wine willbuy organic wine, but nearly everyone hasto clean a bathroom at some point, so greencleaning supplies have a bigger prospec-tive market.

The nonprofit Center for a New Amer-ican Dream, which advocates for re-sponsible consumption, offers a similarlist of personal steps to “Turn the Tide”:

• Drive less.• Eat less feedlot beef.• Eat eco-friendly seafood.• Remove your address from bulk

mailing lists.• Install compact fluorescent light

bulbs.• Use less energy for home heating

and cooling.• Eliminate lawn pesticides.• Reduce home water usage.• Inspire your friends.“None of Turn the Tide’s nine actions

involve drastic changes in your life, yeteach packs an environmental punch,” saysthe center. “In fact, every thousand par-ticipants prevent the emission of 4 mil-

lion pounds of climate-warming carbon dioxide every year.” 3

1 Samuel Fromartz, Organic, Inc.: Natural Foods and How They Grew (2006),pp. 248-53.2 Michael Brower and Warren Leon, The Consumer’s Guide to Effective En-vironmental Choices (1999), pp. 43-85.3 Center for a New American Dream, “Turn the Tide,” www.newdream.org/cnad/user/turn_the_tide.php.

Guidelines for Eco-minded ConsumersHere’s how to have the most impact.

Installing compact fluorescent light bulbsis one of several tips for responsibleconsumption recommended by theCenter for a New American Dream.

Get

ty I

mag

es/S

teve

Wis

bau

er

Feb. 29, 2008 207Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

and nitrogen oxide emissions thatcaused acid rain. This approach setan overall cap on emissions and is-sued a fixed number of tradableemission permits to sources. Facto-ries emitting less pollution than theirallotments could sell extra permits toother sources — giving polluters aneconomic incentive to clean up, ad-vocates asserted. 38

The SO2 trading program went intoeffect in 1995 and expanded in 2000.Many supporters praised it for cuttingSO2 releases sharply at a lower costthan industry had predicted. 39 How-ever, acid rain remained a problem inareas located downwind from majorpollution sources, such as the Adiron-dack Mountains, and emissions trad-ing did not prove to be a panacea forother U.S. air pollution problems. 40

During the 1990s some economicexperts began to argue that going greenmade sound business sense. By re-ducing pollution, the theory held,companies would make their opera-tions more efficient, which meant thatthey would use less energy and wastefewer raw materials. “Innovation tocomply with environmental regulationoften improves product performanceor quality,” business professors MichaelPorter and Claas van der Linde assert-ed in 1995. 41

As one step, some companies forgedrelationships with large environmentalgroups. 42 McDonald’s worked with En-vironmental Defense to design a pa-perboard alternative to its polystyrene“clamshell” hamburger package, andthe Rainforest Alliance helped ChiquitaBrands develop social and environmentalstandards for its banana farms in LatinAmerica. 43 However, critics argued thatby accepting corporate donations andputting business executives on theirboards of directors, environmentalistsrisked becoming too sympathetic to pri-vate interests. 44

Some smaller groups stuck to moreaggressive tactics. San Francisco’s Rain-forest Action Network carried out

scrappy direct-action campaigns that per-suaded Burger King to stop using beefraised on former rainforest lands andHome Depot to sell only sustainablyproduced wood. The Earth Island In-stitute used negative publicity and aconsumer boycott to make tuna com-panies adopt fishing practices that avoid-ed killing dolphins in tuna nets. Andmajor groups continue to vilify com-panies like oil giant Exxon/Mobil, whoseopposition to action on global warm-ing and support for oil drilling in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge made ita prime environmental target. 45

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol applied off-sets to climate change in a provisioncalled the Clean Development Mecha-nism (CDM), under which developedcountries could meet part of their com-mitments by paying for projects that re-duced GHG emissions in developingcountries. This process was designedto reduce costs by letting industrializednations cut GHG emissions in locationswhere environmental upgrades werecheaper. (GHGs dissipate widelythroughout the atmosphere, so elimi-nating a ton of CO2 emissions has thesame impact on climate change wher-ever it occurs.)

Shopping for Change

N ational environmental policy be-came more contentious after

George W. Bush was elected presi-dent in 2000 with strong support fromenergy- and resource-intensive indus-tries. Many administration appointeespushed to loosen environmental reg-ulations, and President Bush reverseda campaign pledge to limit greenhousegas emissions that caused global warm-ing, arguing that doing so would hurtthe economy. 46

Stymied at the federal level, envi-ronmentalists looked for other ways toleverage public support for green poli-cies. Many advocacy groups deepenedties with businesses to influence cor-

porate policies and earn political sup-port from the private sector. They alsourged members to target their buyingpower toward green goals. “People gottired of the gloom and doom approach.They wanted to hear about solutions,”explained Bud Ris, executive directorof the Union of Concerned Scientistsfrom 1984 through 2003. 47

Even as scientific consensus increasedthat human actions were causing glob-al climate change, President George W.Bush opposed calls for mandatory con-trols on U.S. GHG emissions. Instead,in 2002 Bush pledged to reduce U.S.GHG emissions per dollar of eco-nomic activity by 18 percent by 2012.“This will set America on a path toslow the growth of our greenhousegas emissions and, as science justifies,to stop and then reverse the growthof emissions,” Bush said. However,many analysts noted, even if the Amer-ican economy became 18 percent lesscarbon-intensive, its total GHG emis-sions would increase during that timeas a result of normal economic growth.

Many corporations joined voluntaryinitiatives, however, like EPA’s ClimateLeaders program or the privately fund-ed Pew Center on Global Climate Poli-cy, both to show stockholders that theywere paying attention to the environ-ment and to discuss what kind of cli-mate change policies would be mostworkable for businesses. 48 These part-nerships required companies to measuretheir GHG emissions and develop strate-gies for reducing them. Companies alsobegan exploring options like renewableenergy certificates (RECs) and carbon off-sets to reduce their carbon footprints.

Some companies turned growing con-cerns about pollution and climatechange to their advantage with productsthat were both high-quality and green.Toyota’s gas-electric hybrid Prius hatch-back, which promised drivers 60 milesper gallon in city driving, debuted withlimited sales in U.S. markets in 2000. By2005 the Prius had become a symbolof green chic, and Toyota was selling

208 CQ Researcher

BUYING GREEN

100,000 per year. And after the U.S.Department of Agriculture finalized stan-dards for certifying organic food in2000, Whole Foods rode growing de-mand for organic and natural groceriesto become the largest natural foodmarket chain in the nation.

CURRENTSITUATION

Keeping Standards High

A s consumer interest in green prod-ucts rises, regulators and environ-

mentalists are taking a critical look at de-finitions and marketplace practices. Strongstandards are needed, observers say, toprevent a new wave of greenwashingand help consumers avoid wasting money.

“The nature of marketing is to puffup products. That’s why we have label-ing laws, and there are struggles overwho regulates what,” says University ofCalifornia sociologist Szasz. “The first strug-gle is over how regulated a product likeorganic food will be and who will doit. Then once the rules are written, de-bate over practices like greenwashingtakes place within those boundaries.”

In late 2007 the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC) announced plans to re-view its green marketing guidelinesand new green products such as car-bon offsets. 49 FTC’s guidelines offeradvice for manufacturers on a varietyof green products, but the commis-sion may issue specific guidance oncarbon offsets and RECs.

“We want to learn more about whatthese products are, how they work andhow much activity is going on in themarketplace. We’re also exploring howmarketers are substantiating their claimsand what consumers need to know aboutthese products that we can provide,”says FTC attorney Hampton Newsome.

The FTC is not an environmentalagency, so it will not set specificationsfor individual products. Rather, it con-siders questions such as whether labelsprovide enough clear information forconsumers to make judgments. For ex-ample, according to agency guidelines,a bottle labeled “50% more recycledcontent” would be ambiguous becausethe comparison could refer to a com-peting brand or to a prior version ofthe product. A label reading “50% morerecycled content than our previous pack-age” would be clearer. 50

“Marketers have to substantiate ex-press or implied marketing claims withcompetent and reliable evidence,” saysNewsome. “How consumers understandthe claim is key, because that deter-mines their purchasing decisions, notwhat the seller intended.” Under theFederal Trade Commission Act, whichoutlaws unfair and deceptive trade prac-tices, companies that make false or mis-leading claims could face penalties in-cluding injunctions or forfeiture of profits.

Many organizations are working tohelp standardize carbon offsets and de-fine high-quality versions. There are anumber of issues to consider, says ColbyCollege’s Tietenberg. “Quantification isimportant. The fact that something re-duces greenhouse gases is useful, butyou need to quantify how much it re-duces them,” he says. “You need to en-sure that the initial reductions prevailthrough the life of the offset — for ex-ample, if you plant trees and the for-est burns down, you don’t get the off-set. And you need a tracking system tokeep people from selling the same off-sets to multiple buyers.”

Advocates also want to make greencertification programs more rigorous.Some have criticized the LEED ratingsystem for green buildings, saying thatits checklists are simplistic and give toomuch weight to small steps, like in-stalling bicycle racks, and not enoughto bigger ones, such as renovating ahistoric building instead of razing it. 51

But the green building movement re-

mains strong: By 2010, trade publica-tions estimate that about 10 percent ofcommercial construction starts will begreen projects (not all of which mayseek LEED ratings). 52

Watchdogs also see room for im-provement in the Energy Star program.In 2007 EPA’s inspector general report-ed that the agency was not doing enoughto confirm that Energy Star products(which are tested by manufacturers, notEPA) performed at the promised level,or to prevent unqualified products frombeing labeled as Energy Star models. 53

The Government Accountability Officealso criticized relying on manufacturersto test products and urged EPA and theEnergy Department to look more close-ly at issues such as how many prod-ucts are purchased because of EnergyStar ratings. 54

More Mandates?

C ongressional supporters of a na-tional renewable electricity port-

folio standard have pledged to bringRPS legislation up again this year. Coun-tering the argument that this policywould penalize some states, a study bythe American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) projects thatelectricity prices would be lower acrossthe U.S. in 2020 and 2025 under a stan-dard like that passed by the House in2007 (combining renewable electricityand conservation) than without an RPS.A more aggressive standard that met15 percent of electricity demand withrenewable fuels and 15 percent throughconservation would push prices evenlower, ACEEE found. 55

“Including energy efficiency bringsdown wholesale prices,” explains ACEEEDeputy Director Prindle. Efficiency andrenewables also complement each other,he says, because conservation projectscan be put in place more quickly whilenew renewable energy projects are sitedand built.

Continued on p. 210

no

Feb. 29, 2008 209Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

At Issue:Does the United States need a national renewable electricityportfolio standard?Yes

yesGOV. BILL RITTER, JR., D-COLO.

FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEEON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING,SEPT. 20, 2007

it has been our experience that [a renewable electricityportfolio standard] creates new jobs, spurs economic devel-opment and increases the tax base all while saving con-

sumers and businesses money and protecting our environment.In 2004, following three years of failed legislative efforts, thepeople of Colorado placed the nation’s first citizen-initiated re-newable portfolio standard (RPS), Amendment 37, on the ballot.While the effort was opposed by virtually all Colorado utilities,including the state’s largest utility — Xcel Energy — the effortpassed by a wide margin. The Colorado RPS established a goalof 10 percent renewable resources by 2015 for Xcel Energy(along with the other Colorado Public Utilities Commission-regulated utility, Aquila).

In 2004, 10 percent was an ambitious goal: a little over 1 percent of Xcel’s electricity was generated from renewablesources at that time. Today, it is the country’s leading providerof wind energy. Xcel will meet the 10-percent-by-2015 goal atthe end of 2007 — nearly eight years ahead of schedule.

Xcel has done what all successful businesses do — itadapted. While Xcel originally viewed the RPS as a burden, itsoon recognized it as an opportunity, and the utility is now agreat example of the successes that will come from our NewEnergy Economy. . . .

Renewable energy development of the future is not limitedto wind. In Colorado, we are fortunate to have a broad mixof renewable resources, including wind on our Eastern Plains,solar in the San Luis Valley and southwest part of the stateand geothermal all along our Western Slope. . . .

The committee has asked how a national renewable elec-tricity standard will impact technologies in Colorado. Devel-opments in wind technology have led the industry to becost competitive with fossil fuel generation, but we needsimilar developments in both solar electric as well as con-centrated solar technology. With the appropriate leadershipfrom the federal government, these resources have the opportunity to join wind as a primary source of renewablepower. . . .

As we saw with the RPS in Colorado — we encouragedthe market through the RPS, and the market has responded.Investment, research and development are following the estab-lishment of the RPS. A federal RPS provides more markets forrenewable energy, prosperity for Americans in the heartlandand a more responsible energy future for our nation.No

CHRIS M. HOBSONSENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH ANDENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, SOUTHERN COMPANY

FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEEON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING,SEPT. 20, 2007

southern Company opposes a national renewable-energymandate. We believe that mandates are an inefficientand potentially counterproductive means of increasing

the production of cost-effective, reliable electric power from renewable sources. We prefer to seek cost-effective additions toour generation portfolio based on technological maturity, techni-cal performance, reliability and economic cost. . . .

Our estimates show that a 15 percent federal renewable-energy mandate would far exceed the available renewable re-sources in the Southeastern region. To replace 15 percent ofthe nation’s retail energy by 2020 would require approximately80,000 wind turbines of 2 megawatt capacity each, or 2,200square miles of land — an area larger than Delaware — forsolar photovoltaic arrays, or 87,000 square miles of switchgrass fields — an area the size of Minnesota. To replace 15percent of just Southern Company’s retail energy by 2020would require approximately 6,900 wind turbines of 2megawatt capacity each, or 200 square miles of land for solarphotovoltaics, or 6,000 square miles of switchgrass fields —an area the size of Connecticut. . . .

Because the renewable resources that would be required tocomply with a 15 percent mandate are not available in theSoutheast, Southern Company would be required to complylargely by making alternative compliance payments to the feder-al government. . . . Because of the limited availability of renew-able resources in our region and the fact that most of what isavailable will likely be more expensive than the 3 cents/kilo-watt-hour price cap, the majority of the $19 billion cost to ourcustomers will simply be payments to the federal government.Thus a nationwide [renewable portfolio standard] mandate couldcost electricity consumers in the Southeast billions of dollars inhigher electricity prices, with no guarantee that additional re-newable generation will actually be developed. . . .

Not every technology will be well-suited to every region ofthe country. We do believe that the use of renewable energyto produce electricity can be increased, and we intend to playa key role in the research and development needed to reachsuch an objective. This is best reached by the enhancement ofcurrent strategies to provide incentives for the R&D as well asthe use of renewable energy as compared to the adoption ofa federal mandate for a single standard across the country.

210 CQ Researcher

But opponents are likely to fight anynew RPS proposals in 2008. Energyproducers in the Southeast maintain thata national RPS will penalize their re-gion, and the White House threatenedto veto the 2007 energy bill over itsRPS requirement. “A federal RPS thatis unfair in its applica-tion, is overly prescrip-tive in its definition byexcluding many low-car-bon technologies anddoes not allow states toopt out would hurt con-sumers and undercutstate decisions,” Nation-al Economic CouncilChair Allan Hubbardwrote to congressionalleaders in late 2007. 56

First Congress mayhave to revisit anothercontroversial green man-date — the RenewableFuels Standard (RFS), en-acted in 2005 and ex-panded in 2007, whichpromotes bio-basedtransportation fuels likeethanol and biodiesel. 57

The original RFS, which was adoptedto reduce U.S. dependence on importedoil and cut pollution from transporta-tion, required refiners to use 5.4 billiongallons of renewable fuels (mostly blend-ed with conventional gasoline) in 2008,rising to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.The new law mandates 9 billion gal-lons in 2008, increasing to 36 billiongallons by 2022.

Most biofuel sold in the UnitedStates is ethanol made from corn, al-though researchers are starting to makeethanol from cellulosic sources (cropwastes and woody plants), which havea higher energy content and requirefewer resources to produce. For themoment, however, much support forthe RFS comes from farm-state law-makers and agribusinesses investedin corn ethanol.

Many observers believe that the RFSis poorly designed and is producing un-intended consequences. Two recent stud-ies suggest that the push to expand bio-fuel crops may trigger such widespreadland clearing that it increases climatechange (by destroying forests that takeup carbon) instead of reducing it. 58

And by driving up demand for corn,which also is used in animal feed andprocessed foods, critics say the mandateis increasing food prices. 59

“The RFS has a narrow focus on aparticular technology, and it doesn’tstrike a balance between demand andsupply,” says Prindle. “Also, it will takea lot of new capacity to meet the tar-gets, including inputs like water andelectricity as well as grain. You haveto develop a massive new infrastruc-ture across the middle of the country[where most corn is grown].” ColbyCollege’s Tietenberg seconds this per-spective. “Mandates should be perfor-mance-based instead of requiring aspecific input,” he says. “You want tomake sure the standard is clear butthat there are flexible options formeeting it.”

Green Is Red-Hot

A mid these debates, green mar-keting is spreading across much

of the nation’s economy. Today greenlabeling is most commonly found onoffice products, building materials,

cleaning products andelectronics. “In the 20years between the last greenbubble and this one, theonly people who expressedstrong interest in greenproducts were large insti-tutional purchasers like gov-ernment agencies, collegesand hospitals, so green la-beling had a very business-centric focus,” explainsTerraChoice’s Case.

But now the message ispenetrating into new sec-tors. Transportation, forexample, accounts forabout 27 percent of U.S.GHG emissions and is amajor contributor to re-gional air pollution. Adecade ago gas-guzzlingsport utility vehicles (SUVs)

and light trucks dominated the U.S.auto market, but in 2007 sales of gas-electric hybrid Toyota Prius hatchbackssurpassed the Ford Explorer, long thetop-selling SUV. 60

Now, with gas prices high and newfuel-efficiency standards signed into law,U.S. automakers are terminating someSUV lines, converting others to small-er “crossovers” and putting moremoney into alternative vehicles. In 2007General Motors unveiled a conceptmodel of the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-inelectric car that uses a small gasolineengine as a generator to charge itsbatteries. GM is still designing the Voltbut hopes to have it on the market bylate 2010. 61 Other companies, includ-ing Toyota and Ford, are developingplug-in hybrids that can be rechargedat standard 120-volt outlets.

BUYING GREEN

Continued from p. 208

Many grocery stores have begun selling reusable shopping bags asan alternative to environmentally unfriendly plastic bags.

Get

ty I

mag

es/M

ario

Tam

a

Feb. 29, 2008 211Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Home and personal care productsare also becoming increasingly green,in response to consumer alarm overrecent reports describing toxic, haz-ardous and untested ingredients in com-mon consumer goods. For example,laboratory testing carried out for theCampaign for Safe Cosmetics in 2007found detectable levels of lead, a neu-rotoxic chemical, in many brand-namelipsticks. 62 Another recent study foundincreased levels of phthalates (chemi-cal softeners that have been linked toreproductive problems and are bannedfrom personal care products in the Eu-ropean Union) in infants who weretreated with baby lotions, powders andshampoos. 63 Toys, food and beveragecontainers, upholstery, and other goodshave also been found to contain com-pounds known or suspected to be haz-ardous to human health.

But this area is a major greenwashingzone, with marketers often relying onslogans that have no standard mean-ing. “While splashy terms and phras-es such as ‘earth-friendly,’ ‘organic,’‘nontoxic,’ and ‘no harmful fragrances’can occasionally be helpful, the uglytruth is in the ingredients list,” the en-vironmental magazine Grist advises inits green living guide. 64

OUTLOOKFocus on Carbon

W hichever party wins the WhiteHouse in 2008, it appears like-

ly that the United States will adoptbinding GHG limits sometime after anew president takes office in 2009.All of the front-runners for president,including Democrats Hillary RodhamClinton and Barack Obama and Re-publican John McCain, support cap-and-trade legislation that would sharplyreduce U.S. emissions by 2050 — a

timetable that many scientists believeis needed to avert catastrophic globalwarming. 65

Many companies can read the writ-ing on the wall and are working toturn the issue to their advantage. “Thebusiness community sees tremendousopportunity in green products. It’s achance for companies to push tech-nology and come up with innovativesolutions,” says the National Associa-tion of Manufacturers’ McCoy. “We’reon the cusp of some fascinating dis-coveries that could help solve our en-ergy needs. We need to consider whatresearch and development incentivesgovernment can offer to facilitate that,with manufacturers and the businesscommun i t y i nvo l ved . ” EvenExxon/Mobil, long one of the strongestfoes of binding GHG limits, has start-ed to discuss what national controlsshould look like. 66

With mandatory GHG limits inplace, will green consumerism stillhave a role to play? Many observerssee buying green as an important pieceof the larger solution. “The reality isthat we consume products every day.This is not going to change any timesoon,” says Dorfman, the “Lazy Envi-ronmentalist.” “So we have to findmore environmentally conscious waysto consume if we want to maintain ourquality of lives and not see them de-graded by climate change. . . . How-ever, the solutions have to fit ourlifestyles or the great majority of uswon’t even consider them.” 67

But green consumption and busi-ness/environment partnerships are notsubstitutes for political action, says ColbyCollege’s Tietenberg. “You need poli-cies to level the playing field. If somefirms are out there doing more and itcosts more, they may have troublecompeting and lose market share,” heargues. “But if government sets rulesthat create a level playing field, busi-ness will take the ball and run with it.Many businesses are asking for nationalstandards now.”

Consumers who want to make aserious impact with their purchasesneed to learn which steps make themost difference. “People have a lim-ited understanding of their carbonfootprints,” says Climate Trust Direc-tor Burnett. “They don’t necessarilyknow what kind of fuel generatestheir electricity, or how significant air-plane flights are.” And comparingproducts’ full life-cycle impacts canget complicated. For example, todaymany consumers are debating whetherit is preferable to buy organicallygrown food that is shipped over longdistances to market (generating GHGemissions in the process) or locallygrown food that has been raisedusing less earth-friendly methods. 68

“Wisdom is a curse — once you learnabout these issues, you can’t overlookthem,” says LOHAS Forum Director Ning.“But as we confront more problems likeenvironmental toxins that stem frommanufacturing processes, people are be-coming more aware of design impacts.They’re trying to understand more abouthow products work, and producers aretrying to learn more about sustainability.Now that these ideas are becoming partof school curriculums, and people aretalking about them more, our con-sciousness is only going to grow.”

Notes

1 Tearfund, “Senior Bishops Call For CarbonFast This Lent,” Feb. 5, 2008, www.tear-fund.org.2 Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates, “Con-sumers Will Double Spending on Green,”Sept. 27, 2007.3 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ConsumerExpenditure Survey, 2000-2006, www.bls.gov/cex/2006/standard/multiyr.pdf.4 Karlo Barrios Marcelo and Mark Hugo Lopez,“How Young People Expressed Their PoliticalViews in 2006,” Center for Information & Re-search on Civic Learning & Engagement, Uni-versity of Maryland, November 2007; ScottKeeger, “Politics and the ‘DotNet’ Generation,”Pew Research Center, May 30, 2006; Lori J.

212 CQ Researcher

BUYING GREEN

Vogelgesang and Alexander W. Astin, “Post-College Civic Engagement Among Graduates,”Higher Education Research Institute, Universityof California, Los Angeles, April 2005.5 U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “The FTC’sEnvironmental Cases,” www.ftc.gov/bcp/con-line/edcams/eande/contentframe_environment_cases.html.6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Climate Change 2007: The Physical ScienceBasis, Summary for Policymakers (2007), pp.3, 5. For background, see Marcia Clemmitt,“Climate Change,” CQ Researcher, Jan. 27,2006, pp. 73-96, and Colin Woodard, “Curb-ing Climate Change,” CQ Global Researcher,February 2007, pp. 27-50.7 For background see Peter Katel, “ConsumerSafety,” CQ Researcher, Oct. 12, 2007, pp.841-864, and Jennifer Weeks, “Factory Farms,”CQ Researcher, Jan. 12, 2007, pp. 25-48.8 For background see Tom Price, “The NewEnvironmentalism,” CQ Researcher, Dec. 1,2006, pp. 985-1008, and Tom Price, “CorporateSocial Responsibility,” CQ Researcher, Aug. 3,2007, pp. 649-672.9 For details on these companies’ pledges,see www.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/;www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/our_pledge.asp; and www.thinkgreen.com.10 For background see Marcia Clemmitt, “Cli-mate Change,” CQ Researcher, Jan. 27, 2006,pp. 73-96.11 U.S. Climate Action Partnership, A Call forAction (2007), p. 3, www.us-cap.org/US-CAPCallForAction.pdf.12 Joel Makower, et al., State of Green Busi-ness 2008 (2008), p. 3, www.stateofgreen-business.com/.13 CarbonCounter.org, www.carboncounter.org/offset-your-emissions/personal-calculator.aspx; Union of Concerned Scientists, “What’sYour Carbon Footprint?” www.ucsusa.org/pub-lications/greentips/whats-your-carb.html.

14 A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon Off-set Providers (2006), www.cleanair-coolplan-et.org/ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf.15 Ted Williams, “As Ugly As a Tree,” Audubon,September/October 2007.16 Ben Elgin, “Another Inconvenient Truth,”Business Week, March 26, 2007.17 Kevin Smith, The Carbon-Neutral Myth:Offset Indulgences for Your Climate Sins (2007),pp. 10-11, www.carbontradewatch.org.18 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Elec-tric Market Overview: Renewables,” updatedJan. 15, 2008, www.ferc.gov/market-over-sight/mkt-electric/overview/elec-ovr-rps.pdf.19 Congressional Record, Aug. 4, 2007, p. H9847.20 “Send Your Underwear to the Undersec-retary,” Competitive Enterprise Institute newsrelease, May 16, 2007.21 “Washers and Dryers: Performance ForLess,” Consumer Reports, February 2008.22 For details see www.energystar.gov.23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,“Energy Star and Other Climate ProtectionPartnerships 2006 Annual Report,” Septem-ber 2007, p. 15, www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/annual_report_2006.pdf.According to the Department of Energy, theaverage U.S. household uses about 11,000kilowatt-hours of electricity annually; seewww.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/appli-ances.htm.24 For details see www.usgbc.org.25 Jenny Shank, “An Interview With ‘Lazy Envi-ronmentalist’ Josh Dorfman,” July 2, 2007,www.newwest.net/topic/article/an_interview_with_lazy_environmentalist_josh_dorfman/C39/L39/.26 Bill McKibben, “Reversal of Fortune,”Mother Jones, March/April 2007.27 Michael Brower and Warren Leon, TheConsumer’s Guide To Effective EnvironmentalChoices (1999).28 LOHAS Forum, “About LOHAS,” www.lohas.com/about.htm.

29 Patrrick O’Driscoll and Elizabeth Weise,“Green Living Takes Root But Habits Die Hard,”USA Today, April 19, 2007; Anjali Athavaley, “ASerious Problem (But Not My Problem), WallStreet Journal Classroom Edition, February 2008.30 John Muir, “God’s First Temples: How ShallWe Preserve Our Forests?” reprinted in JohnMuir, Nature Writings (1997), p. 629.31 For background see Tom Arrandale, “PublicLand Policy,” CQ Researcher, June 17, 1994,pp. 529-552.32 Massachusetts Foundation for the Hu-manities, “Mass Moments,” www.massmo-ments.org/moment.cfm?mid=262.33 Michael D. Johnson, “A Sociocultural Per-spective on the Development of U.S. NaturalResource Partnerships in the 20th Century,”USDA Forest Service Proceedings (2000), p. 206.34 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v.Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d 608 (1965).35 Philip Shabecoff, Earth Rising: American En-vironmentalism in the 21st Century (2000), p. 7.36 Republican Party Platform of 1980, adoptedJuly 15, 1980, online at The American Presi-dency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/show-platforms.php?platindex=R1980.37 Joanne Omang, “Reagan Criticizes CleanAir Laws and EPA as Obstacles to Growth,”The Washington Post, Oct. 9, 1980.38 See “Acid Rain: New Approach to OldProblem,” CQ Researcher, March 3, 1991.39 Environmental Defense, From Obstacle to Op-portunity: How Acid Rain Emissions Trading IsDelivering Cleaner Air (September 2000);Robert N. Stavins, “Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments,”Discussion Paper 01-58, Resources for theFuture, November 2001, pp. 27-29.40 See Charles T. Driscoll, et al., Acid RainRevisited: Advances in Scientific Understand-ing Since the Passage of the 1970 and 1990Clean Air Act Amendments (2001); Mary H.Cooper, “Air Pollution Conflict,” CQ Researcher,Nov. 14, 2003, pp. 965-988; and JenniferWeeks, “Coal’s Comeback,” CQ Researcher,Oct. 5, 2007, pp. 817-840.41 Michael E. Porter and Claas van der Linde,“Toward a New Concept of the Environmental-Competitiveness Issue,” Journal of EconomicPerspectives, vol. 9, no. 4, fall 1995, p. 99.42 For background see Tom Price, “The NewEnvironmentalism,” CQ Researcher, Dec. 1,2006, pp. 985-1008.43 Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston, Greento Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environ-mental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, andBuild Competitive Advantage (2006), pp. 70-71.

About the AuthorJennifer Weeks is a CQ Researcher contributing writer inWatertown, Mass., who specializes in energy and environ-mental issues. She has written for The Washington Post,The Boston Globe Magazine and other publications, andhas 15 years’ experience as a public-policy analyst, lob-byist and congressional staffer. She has an A.B. degreefrom Williams College and master’s degrees from the Uni-versity of North Carolina and Harvard.

Feb. 29, 2008 213Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

44 Mark Dowie, Losing Ground: AmericanEnvironmentalism at the Close of the TwentiethCentury (1995), pp. 114-124.45 For details see “Exxpose Exxon,” www.exxposeexxon.com.46 See Mary H. Cooper, “Energy Policy,” CQResearcher, May 25, 2001, pp. 441-464, andMary H. Cooper, “Bush and the Environment,”CQ Researcher, Oct. 25, 2002, pp. 865-896.47 Steve Nadis, “Non-Government Organiza-tions (NGOs) Mini-Reviews,” New EnglandBioLabs, www.neb.com.48 For more information, see www.epa.gov/stateply/index.html and www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc.49 For more information see www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/carbonoffsets/index.shtml.50 U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “Comply-ing With the Environmental Marketing Guides,”www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubc/buspubs/greenguides.pdf.51 Auden Schendler and Randy Udall, “LEEDIs Broken; Let’s Fix It,” Grist, October 26,2005; Stephen Del Percio, “What’s Wrong WithLEED?” Green Building, spring 2007.52 McGraw Hill, Green Building Smart Mar-ket Report 2006, cited in “Green Building bythe Numbers,” U.S. Green Building Council,February 2008.53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof the Inspector General, “Energy Star ProgramCan Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrityof the Label,” Aug. 1, 2007, www.epa.gov/oig/re-ports/2007/20070801-2007-P-00028.pdf.54 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “En-ergy Efficiency: Opportunities Exist for Fed-eral Agencies to Better Inform HouseholdConsumers,” GAO-07-1162 (September 2007).55 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Econ-omy, “Assessment of the Renewable ElectricityStandard and Expanded Clean Energy Scenar-ios,” Dec. 5, 2007, http://aceee.org/pubs/e079.htm.56 The full letter is posted online athttp://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/8/White_House_letter_on_CAFE.pdf.57 For background see Peter Katel, “Oil Jit-ters,” CQ Researcher, Jan. 4, 2008, pp. 1-24,and Adriel Bettelheim, “Biofuels Boom,” CQResearcher, Sept. 29, 2006, pp. 793-816.58 Joseph Fargione, et al., “Land Clearing andthe Biofuel Carbon Debt,” Sciencexpress Report,Feb. 7, 2008; Timothy Searchinger, et al., “Useof U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Green-house Gases Through Emissions from Land UseChange,” Sciencexpress Report, Feb. 7, 2008.59 Randy Schnepf, “Agriculture-Based Renew-able Energy Production,” Congressional Re-

search Service, Oct. 16, 2007, pp. 16-20; ColinA. Carter and Henry I. Miller, “Hidden Costsof Corn-Based Ethanol,” The Christian ScienceMonitor, May 21, 2007; “Food Prices: CheapNo More,” The Economist, Dec. 6, 2007.60 Bernard Simon, “Prius Overtakes Explorerin the U.S.,” Financial Times, Jan. 11, 2008.61 “Chevy Volt FAQs,” www.gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs.62 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, “A Poison Kiss:The Problem of Lead in Lipstick,” October 2007,www.safecosmetics.org.63 Sheela Sathyanarayana, et al., “Baby CareProducts: Possible Sources of Infant Phtha-late Exposure,” Pediatrics, February 2008.

64 Brangien Davis and Katharine Wroth, eds.,Wake Up and Smell the Planet: The Non-Pompous,Non-Preachy Grist Guide to Greening Your Day(2007), p. 20.65 “Compare the Candidates,” Grist, www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html.66 Jeffrey Ball, “Exxon Mobil Softens Its Climate-Change Stance,” The Wall Street Journal, Jan.11, 2007.67 Jenny Shank, op. cit.68 For example, see Mindy Pennybacker, “Localor Organic? I’ll Take Both,” The Green Guide,September/October 2006, www.thegreen-guide.com/doc/116/local, and John Cloud, “Eat-ing Better Than Organic,” Time, March 2, 2007.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONAmerican Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,Suite 801, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 429-8873; www.aceee.org. Supports energy-efficiency measures to promote economic prosperity and environmental protection.

Clean Air-Cool Planet, 100 Market St., Suite 204, Portsmouth, NH 03801; (603) 422-6464; www.cleanair-coolplanet.org. A nonprofit organization that partners with business-es, colleges and communities throughout the Northeast to reduce carbon emissions andeducate the public and opinion leaders about global warming impacts and solutions.

Climate Trust, 65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97204; (503) 238-1915;www.climatetrust.org. Created to implement an Oregon law that requires new powerplants to offset some of their carbon emissions, the Climate Trust produces greenhousegas offset projects for energy companies, regulators, businesses, and individuals.

Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1250, Wash-ington, DC 20036; (202) 331-1010; www.cei.org. A public policy research centerdedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

Consumers Union, 101 Truman Ave., Yonkers, NY 10703; (914) 378-2000;www.consumersunion.org. A nonprofit expert group that promotes a fair and safemarket for all consumers; activities include testing and rating products and pub-lishing Consumer Reports magazine, as well as GreenerChoices.org, a Web site fo-cusing on green products.

Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580;(202) 326-2222; www.ftc.gov. Protects consumers’ interests, promotes competitionand advises businesses on eco-labeling; it is currently reviewing its green marketingguidelines.

LOHAS Forum, 360 Interlocken Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80021; (303) 822-2263;www.lohas.com. An annual business conference focused on the marketplace forgoods and services related to health, the environment, social justice, personal development and sustainable living.

National Association of Manufacturers, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washing-ton, DC 20004; (202) 637-3000; www.nam.org. Promotes legislation and regulationsconducive to economic growth and highlights manufacturers’ contributions to inno-vation and productivity.

TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc., 1706 Friedensburg Road, Reading,PA 19606; (800) 478-0399; www.terrachoice.com. Conducts market research andadvises on strategy, communication and policy issues.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

214 CQ Researcher

Books

Brower, Michael, and Warren Leon, The Consumer’s Guideto Effective Environmental Choices, Three Rivers Press, 1999.Although somewhat dated, this guide prioritizes consumer ac-

tions according to the scale of their environmental impacts basedon extensive data and analysis. Brower and Leon, both seniorenvironmental experts, draw on research by the Union of Con-cerned Scientists, a national environmental advocacy group.

Esty, Daniel C., and Andrew S. Winston, Green To Gold:How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy toInnovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage,Yale University Press, 2006.Two Yale experts on business and the environment show

how green strategies can help companies manage environ-mental challenges and gain an edge over competitors.

Szasz, Andrew, Shopping Our Way to Safety: How WeChanged from Protecting the Environment to ProtectingOurselves, University of Minnesota Press, 2007.Szasz, a sociologist, warns that the current green consump-

tion boom could have negative impacts if it turns people awayfrom broader political action.

Articles

“Climate Business/Business Climate,” Harvard BusinessReview, October 2007.A special report on the business challenges posed by

climate change offers views from a dozen corporate andacademic experts.

Davenport, Coral, “A Clean Break in Energy Policy,”CQ Weekly, Oct. 8, 2007.A national renewable electricity portfolio standard would

trigger widespread changes in the ways that utilities producepower and state regulators oversee them.

Elgin, Ben, “Little Green Lies,” Business Week, Oct. 29, 2007.Auden Schendler, environmental director for Aspen Skiing Co.,

argues that many corporate greening actions are misleadingand empty feel-good gestures.

Farenthold, David A., “Value of U.S. House’s Carbon Offsetsis Murky,” The Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2008.Critics say Congress wasted money by buying carbon offsets

that funded activities already occurring.

Finz, Stacy, “Food Markets Getting Greener, More Sensual,”San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 27, 2008.Consumers want healthier food raised using eco-friendly

methods, and the grocery industry is responding.

Koerner, Brendan I., “Rise of the Green Machine,” Wired,April 2005.Koerner explains how Toyota made it cool to own a hybrid car.

Lynas, Mark, “Can Shopping Save the Planet?” TheGuardian (United Kingdom), Sept. 17, 2007.Numerous corporations are entering the green product market,

but observers argue that at heart green marketing is all aboutsales, not sustainability.

Schultz, Abby, “How To ‘Go Green’ on a Budget,” MSNMoney, June 29, 2007.Many green products are more expensive than conven-

tional options, but consumers can make a difference if theychoose their purchases carefully.

Underwood, Anne, “The Chemicals Within,” Newsweek,Feb. 4, 2008.Many common household products contain chemicals that

could be harmful to humans. Concerns about health effectsare driving many shoppers to seek alternatives.

Williams, Alex, “Don’t Let the Green Grass Fool You,”The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2008.Many suburban Americans would like to shrink their carbon

footprints, but skeptics argue that a lifestyle centered on bighouses and multiple cars is inherently unsustainable.

Reports and Studies

A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers,Clean Air-Cool Planet, 2006, www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf.An advocacy group that helps businesses, universities and

cities and towns reduce greenhouse gas emissions describeskey factors that contribute to the quality of carbon offsetsand identifies some of the most credible offset providers.

Makower, Joel, et al., State of Green Business 2008, Jan-uary 2008, www.stateofgreenbusiness.com.A report on the spread of green business practices finds

that companies are gradually becoming more eco-friendly,but economic growth is offsetting many of the gains, andthat the trend is very hard to quantify.

TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, “The Six Sins ofGreenwashing,” November 2007, www.terrachoice.com/Home/Six%20Sins%20of%20Greenwashing.A study of environmental claims in North American con-

sumer markets finds that virtually all purportedly eco-friendlyproducts mislead consumers to some degree. More accurategreen marketing, it asserts, will benefit consumers, businessesand the environment.

Selected Sources

Bibliography

Feb. 29, 2008 215Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Activism

DeBare, Ilana, “Clorox Introduces Green Line of CleaningProducts,” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 14, 2008.Longtime bleach producer Clorox is launching a new series

of natural, biodegradable household cleaning products calledGreen Works, co-branded with the Sierra Club.

McKibben, Bill, “Global Warming Knocking At Your Door,”The Boston Globe, March 20, 2007.Environmental activist McKibben sees growing support at

the grass roots for global action to slow climate change.

Somaiya, Ravi, “Possum Fur, Eco-Limos, and Solar Sen-sations,” The Guardian (U.K.), Sept. 20, 2007.Creative examples of green marketing, from sustainable

nightclubs to wind-up MP3 players.

Greenwashing

Mitchell, Dan, “Being Skeptical of Green,” The New YorkTimes, Nov. 24, 2007, p. 5C.A recent report by a green marketing firm finds that although

many of the claims associated with green products are not “demon-strably false,” they are vague and misleading to consumers.

Yap, Chuin-Wei, “When It Comes to a “Green” House, BuyerBeware,” St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 30, 2007, p. 1B.With no legal definition of building “green,” builders can mar-

ket themselves as eco-friendly without third-party certification.

Green Consumption

Davidson, Paul, “Getting gold of green; Companies learneco-friendliness helps bottom line,” USA Today, April 19,2007, p. 7A.U.S. companies’ investments in environmentally conscious

programs prove lucrative, as the “green” lifestyle continuesto attract Americans.

Higgins, Adrian, “A Bumper Crop of Organic Items forthe Green Consumer,” The Washington Post, Jan. 17,2008, p. H1.Larger corporations are increasingly staking a claim in the or-

ganic marketplace traditionally defined by smaller enterprises.

Williams, Alex, “Buying into the Green Movement,” TheNew York Times, July 1, 2007, p. D1.Critics question whether the damage of massive consumption

will counteract the benefits of green consumerism.

Carbon Emissions

Clayton, Mark, “Senate energy bill: first skirmish overUS greenhouse-gas regulation,” The Christian Science

Monitor, Dec. 14, 2007, p. 1.The Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate

greenhouse gas emissions is in jeopardy.

Davidson, Paul, “States take on global warming; More thanhalf target emissions,” USA Today, Jan. 21, 2008, p. 1A.Although national legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions

has stalled, many states are acting individually by setting theirown targets.

Carbon Offsets

Daley, Beth, “Carbon Confusion: Buying emission off-sets is a challenge for consumers,” The Boston Globe,March 13, 2007, p. A1.In an unregulated market, consumers do not know what

offsets projects their money is funding.

Deutsch, Claudia H., “Attention Shoppers: Carbon Offsetsin Aisle 6,” The New York Times, March 7, 2007, p. 1H.Environmentalists fear offsets will allow consumers to make

environmentally irresponsible decisions without guilt.

Story, Louise, “F.T.C. Asks If Carbon-Offset Money IsWinding Up True Green,” The New York Times, Jan. 9,2008, p. C1.The Federal Trade Commission is growing increasingly con-

cerned that many carbon-offset programs have the potentialfor deception.

Zimmerman, Eilene, “Undoing Your Daily Damage tothe Earth, for a Price,” The New York Times, Nov. 11,2007, p. C5.The market for carbon offsets continues to grow.

The Next Step:Additional Articles from Current Periodicals

CITING CQ RESEARCHER

Sample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography

include the ones listed below. Preferred styles and formats

vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher

16 Nov. 2001: 945-68.

APA STYLE

Jost, K. (2001, November 16). Rethinking the death penalty.

CQ Researcher, 11, 945-968.

CHICAGO STYLE

Jost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher,

November 16, 2001, 945-968.

?Are you writing a paper?

Need backup for a debate?

Want to become an expert on an issue?

For 80 years, students have turned to CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting on issues in the news. Reports on afull range of political and social issues are now available. Following is a selection of recent reports:

ACCESSCQ Researcher is available in print and online. For access,visit your library or www.cqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENTTo receive notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports, orlearn more about CQ Researcher products, subscribe to thefree e-mail newsletters, CQ Researcher Alert! and CQ ResearcherNews: http://cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASETo purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronicformat (PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737.Single reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts andelectronic-rights licensing are also available.

SUBSCRIBEAnnual full-service CQ Researcher subscriptions—including44 reports a year, monthly index updates, and a boundvolume—start at $803. Add $25 for domestic postage.

CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 and anumber of tools to simplify research. For pricing in-formation, call 800-834-9020, ext. 1906, or e-maillibrarysales@cqpress.com.

Upcoming ReportsAirlines’ Future, 3/7/08 Gender Pay Gap, 3/14/08 Memory Loss, 3/21/08

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

Civil LibertiesImmigration Debate, 2/08Prison Reform, 4/07Voting Controversies, 9/06Right to Die, 5/05

Crime/LawGun Violence, 5/07Patent Disputes, 12/06Sex Offenders, 9/06Treatment of Detainees, 8/06War on Drugs, 6/06

EducationReading Crisis? 2/08Discipline in Schools, 2/08Student Aid, 1/08Science in America, 1/08Racial Diversity in Public Schools, 9/07Stress on Students, 7/07

EnvironmentFuture of Recycling, 12/07Disappearing Species, 11/07Fish Farming, 7/07

Health/SafetyAging Infrastructure, 9/07Wounded Veterans, 8/07Fighting Superbugs, 8/07HPV Vaccine, 5/07Universal Coverage, 3/07Combating Addiction, 2/07

International Affairs/PoliticsCuba’s Future, 7/07Prosecutors and Politics, 6/07Electing the President, 4/07

Social TrendsRise of Megachurches, 9/07Corporate Social Responsibility, 8/07Shock Jocks, 6/07Consumer Debt, 3/07

Terrorism/DefenseReal ID, 5/07New Strategy in Iraq, 2/07

YouthDebating Hip-Hop, 6/07Drinking on Campus, 8/06

CQ RESEARCHER PLUS ARCHIVE

Get Online Access to VitalIssues From 1923 to the Present

For a free trial, visit http://library.cqpress.com/trials.

For pricing information, call 1-800-834-9020, ext. 1906 or e-mail librarymarketing@cqpress.com.

*Editorial Research Reports, the predecessor to CQ Researcher, provides the same expert, nonpartisan reporting on the vital issues that have shaped our society.

CQ Press • 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 800 • Washington, DC 20037

CQ Researcher Plus Archive delivers fast, online access to ev- ery CQ Researcher report from 1991 to the present, PLUS lets you ex- plore the complete archive of Editorial Research Reports* from 1923-1990. Search and browse more than 3,600 in-depth reports.

Loaded with handy online features, CQ Researcher Plus Archive provides the trustworthy reporting and the advanced online functionality today’s research-ers demand. The new “Issue Tracker” feature pro-vides quick links to past and present reports on the specific topics you need.

New!