According to a Washing Post article this week,

“The FTC, which was scheduled to review its guidelines in 2009, said that on Jan. 8, in the first of a series of public meetings, it would examine carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates that claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in one place to offset emissions elsewhere.”

I’ve always been skeptical of green offsetting programs. (I only participate in one such program—green power from my local energy cooperative—and I’ve never been convinced that they’re actually doing something. But I continue to support it because, well, it makes me feel good.) It appears the FTC is also skeptical of such programs. Offsets have become a $55 million, unregulated market and some businesses have taken advantage of that situation. Again according to the Washington Post report,

“Some offsets support projects that would have gone forward anyway. Others promise results that are difficult to measure.”

Yes, it’s a sad state of affairs when businesses take advantage of a good cause to pull one over on the well-intentioned consumer just to make a buck.

It’s about time the FTC take another look. Things have changed so much since 1998, the last time the FTC made a major update to green marketing guidelines. There are businesses out there really trying to make a difference; meanwhile, we’ve got mega-corporations like Ford using my childhood friend Kermit The Frog to push hybrid SUVs that aren’t really all that green. (Where is Jim Henson when we need him?)

Reports are that consumers are demanding more, and they should be. But from what I see, we’re still not at the consumer capacity on this topic to even approach any kind of tipping point. We have a long way to go, so let’s not just sit back and wait for someone else to make the world greener for us. However, I’m well aware that this isn’t an effort that can be shoved down people’s throats. Rather, its a slow education process that begins with our customers, their children, and eventually—hopefully—our friends, co-workers parents, and beyond.

Its all about our habits of consumption, and we are slowly getting better. According to a Chicago Tribune article from Monday, the BBMG report that I wrote about in a November 16th post shows consumers are very interested in green products and services; that is, as long as the price is low and the quality is high. The Tribune put it this way:

“While 66 percent of more than 2,000 U.S. adults surveyed cited quality as the most important factor when deciding when to buy, followed by price with 58 percent, attributes such as a product’s country of origin, how energy efficient it is and its health benefits were all more important to consumers than convenience.”

As someone who encourages small businesses to go green with their products, services, practices and marketing, I’ll be watching to see how these new FTC regulations play out. Should be interesting.

Two studies that have come across my desktop in the past week show that, contrary to the belief of many chambers of commerce across this country, if the tide isn’t at least turning, we may reach a tipping point in the near future.

The first, a very recent study just released by major US marketing and branding agency BBMG shows that consumers want more than just promises from companies when it comes to green marketing. This should come as a shock to no one. Their Conscious Consumer Report, released November 6, reveals that:

“In a world of green clutter, conscious consumers expect companies to do more than make eco-friendly claims. They demand transparency and accountability across every level of business practice. Avoiding the green trap means authentically backing your words with socially responsible actions.”
–Raphael Bemporad, founding partner of BBMG.

It’s refreshing to see what many of us who consider ourselves “conscious consumers” believe reflected in this study by a reputable firm. The bottom line, the study points out to “business leaders and marketers looking to ride the green wave:

“either back your eco-friendly words with socially responsible actions or risk backlash.”

Refreshing because so many of us feel helpless about the impact we make with our purchasing decisions. Not sure where that report is, but it’s a response I hear from so many “conscious consumers”—from friends and family to some I work with professionally, and something I know I feel when the choices to make meaningful impacts through purchasing decisions seem so slim.

The second study, released this week by the Palo Alto-based nonprofit research group Next 10, suggests just the opposite of what so many California businesses cried when the California Assembly debated global warming legislation last fall. According to a November 16 Greenwire story,

“…business groups charged that capping California’s greenhouse gases would wreck the economy,” and “Companies would flee to states and countries with less burdensome climate regulations and California’s gross domestic product would plummet, the California Chamber of Commerce warned.”

But Next 10 found that 14 months after Governor Schwarzenegger signed A.B. 32 into law, the results have been much more in line with what environmentalists would hope for and what business leaders should promote as the real reasons for greenhouse gas-reducing legislation.

California A.B. 32 is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act and it “requires California’s electric utilities and other major industries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases 25 percent by 2020,” according to the Greenwire story.

Here is some of what the Next 10 report found:

• According to federal data, California already has the second-lowest CO2 emissions per capita while generating the tenth-highest GDP per capita in the nation.

• Since 1990, “green” business establishments in the state have grown by 84 percent and employment has doubled.

• 36 percent of U.S. venture capital investments last year went to California-based companies, and the state’s VC investment share is up from 6 percent in 2001.

From my perspective, the resistance comes from fear. Fear of change. Fear of the unknown. Fear of failure. So much of our country’s id today is based on fear. It’s been bred into us by our own government and media. Fear motivates and fear sells. Sad but true.

On the flip side, we are a strong country. I’m not talking about our military might or the strength that comes from our right to bear arms. I’m talking about the strength that comes from our country’s founding on the belief of manifest destiny. (Now, I’m not saying that manifest destiny was necessarily right, but it has engendered Americans with a will to not only survive, but to thrive.) So let’s take that bull by the horns, people, and figure out how to do this thing right. Demand that businesses do the right thing for the planet, its people and themselves. Because it’s not just “for the environment,” it’s for humanity.

While I remain skeptical of anything the candidates put forth, I think her latest plan brings her back up toward the top of the pack on this subject. However, it remains to be seen how successful any of the candidates can be with these proposed energy policies. That said, the republicans aren’t even on the same block in this debate.

If you haven’t seen it yet, you can see Hillary’s updated plan here on her site.

I was glad I caught the debate because it gave me perspective on these candidates that I didn’t have before. That’s what debates are for, right?

So afterward, I went to each of their Web sites to dig a little deeper into their energy policies. To be fair, I used the same search criteria to find them via Google: “[candidate’s name] energy plan.” There was definitely a bit out there, and it wasn’t difficult to find the energy portion of each candidate’s site (At least they seemed to be handling the search marketing well.). But when I got there, it was obvious they had different levels of commitment to energy and expertise in delivering the message via their site. And it’s hard to say exactly which of the above influenced my decision more. For example, does Hilary really have the best energy plan but she just doesn’t know how to convey that via the Web? My guess is no.

Without getting into each component of each candidate’s energy position on each of their sites, here’s how the top candidates stack up for me:

Chris Dodd has the best presentation of his energy policy and the best way of doing it on his site. The points are clearly outlined and they’re good. In particular, I appreciate his stance on energy education—a point I didn’t find within any other candidate’s plan:

Create a technical education curriculum that trains a new generation of automobile mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and construction workers to install, repair and maintain energy efficient goods across the spectrum, from cars to lamps. Training programs will:
• Assure consumers that they can use their energy efficient products without having to worry about what happens when they break.
• Create a new sector of jobs to meet the newly created demand for workers with specialized skills.

His is also the most Web 2.0-friendly site, with YouTube videos and a blogger who obviously is tasked with nothing other than blogging.

Bill Richardson’s plan is the next best. He lays out some very concrete goals:

• Cut Oil Demand: 50% by 2020.
• Create New Efficiencies And Energy Sources in the Electrical Sector: 50% by 2040.
• Dramatically Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 90% by 2050.

Joe Biden and Barack Obama tie for a not-so-close third. Obama’s plan is quite detailed and he, too, lays out some goals, including a cap-and-trade program and an investment in a clean energy economy and American Jobs.

Biden’s policy is clearly laid out (and available for PDF download), but it’s lacking on details. The biggest downfall I see is his heavy reliance on corn as a biofuel and our nation’s farmland to produce it. It’s not that I’m against the use of biofuels, I’m just not convinced that growing corn in the heartland is necessarily the best option.

From there it just gets worse. Edwards gets kudos for having a good starting point, but his plan isn’t very detailed and definitely aimed at the larger end of things: big business, oil companies and the government. And I don’t see any specifics.

Hillary doesn’t even seem to be in the game. Among very few other things, her plan calls for a goal of reducing “pollution” by 80% by 2050, but that doesn’t tell me anything.

It seems that Kucinich’s energy platform is simply anti-nuclear power, with little else about ways to reduce consumption or increase alternative energy.

This is by no means an endorsement of any of these candidates. I haven’t made up my mind yet and I doubt an endorsement from me would mean much. But a focus on energy policy should be important to anyone or any business.