Plenty of products these days claim to be environmentally friendly, recyclable or biodegradable. And the list of buzzwords for environmental marketing claims continues to grow.

But how many of these claims stretch the truth just to sell more product? By creating a set of regulations, Hubert Humphrey III says he hopes to stop what he calls green-collar crime.

Humphrey, Minnesota’s attorney general, has become a national leader in this quest for consistency and accuracy in the use of environmental claims. He currently heads a task force to address the situation with 10 other state attorneys general.

On behalf of all states, this task force prepared Green Report II, a 50-page list of recommendations on green marketing. The report has been submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for consideration and distributed to the corporate world, as well.

“Green Report II goes a long way toward establishing guidelines for marketers,” Humphrey said. “Many companies are trying to do the right thing, but we need to keep the green revolution on the right course by establishing standards and enforcing them at both state and national levels.”

The FTC held hearings on the subject in July. And Humphrey has testified before a Senate subcommittee regarding a bill that calls for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to get involved in green marketing.

“Both the FTC and the EPA have roles to play,” Humphrey said. “The FTC should monitor the day-to-day activities to prevent green-collar fraud, while the EPA has the expertise to define long-term standards. We have a unique situation where consumer protection is merging with environmental protection.”

But the consumer has a role to play as well, he added.

“As we walk down the supermarket aisles, our choices are affecting the environment,” Humphrey said. “And those choices need to be driven by more than just price and quality. That’s why I want to see more accurate information presented to the public.”

However, government control isn’t the consumer’s only hope to achieve more accurate and consistent product claims. Humphrey said he is optimistic about the industry’s own self-regulation efforts. Certification programs like Green Seal and Green Cross, which designate products that are beneficial to the environment, also will help the effort, he noted.

“Certification programs can be very valuable in developing an atmosphere of trust,” he said. “These programs should require producers to maximize efforts, where the FTC and EPA will establish minimum standards.”

If Humphrey achieves his goals, the old warning “buyer beware” no longer will be a consumer’s only source of protection from false environmental claims.

(Tip/Stat) Shoppers make an average 2.3 trips to the grocery store every week. Eliminating one of those trips would save time and energy.

Technorati Tags: green business, consumer protection, environmental protection, environmental marketing claims, environmental marketing, green marketing, environmental fraud

Source: environmental marketing

Today, the Worldwatch Institute published an article detailing a decline in offshore drilling opposition in sharp contrast to the year 1982 when the drilling moratorium was enacted. Further expansions by George H. W. Bush in 1990 extended the moratorium to include the coasts of Florida, California and New England. With the presidency of Clinton in 1998, the ban was again extended until the year 2012.

During this time, the United States government has went as far as to buy back drilling leases off the coasts of Florida from such companies as Chevron, Conoco, and Murphy. In 2002, the Bush Administration paid $115 million to these companies to drop the offshore claims they held at the request of Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Further settlements were proposed to entities such as the Collier family to relinquish mineral rights held in the Everglades. The government offered $350 million in tax deductions and $120 million in cash for mineral rights that the National Park Services and Department of Interior estimated at $20 million and $43 million, respectively. Besides, opening a few areas within the Gulf of Mexico in 2006, expansion of offshore drilling leases has been mostly stagnant.

Recent oil prices and focus on acquiring less foreign oil has begun to change the consensus on expansion of U.S. offshore drilling. Reports by Rasmussen show that 67% of voters favor offshore drilling while 64% feel more drilling will lower high gas prices. It seems clear to why the majority of Americans now support an increase in offshore drilling. Effects on the pocketbook speak very loudly, but this is not the only reason for the change in attitude towards the long held view of offshore drilling, being environmentally unfriendly.

Lumped alongside the bill to lift the offshore drilling ban, are a few healthy nuggets of environmental stewardship. Consumer tax credits for fuel-efficient and clean energy vehicles, renewable energy tax credits, development of alternative fuel sources, and mass transit funding are just a few of the environmental benefits outlined in a plan that many hope will see a vote during this year’s session. Though most environmental groups still oppose lifting the offshore drilling ban, many feel the added benefits are so beneficial to providing clean energy and healthy environment, that a compromise can be made. If a vote is not exercised before the conclusion of Congress this fall, any decision will be left till next year while also including the next President of the United States.

Though Republicans do not feel the Democrats’ plan goes far enough to expand new energy sources, past attitudes of “no new leases”, has swayed with restrictions requiring current leases be explored further, and the added tax incentives for renewable energy energy sources. Safer drilling practices, higher oil prices, and increased pressure on providing an energy independent America, may soon make new offshore drilling a reality along thousands of acres of U.S. coastline.