Environmental Schizophrenia?
	The American political psyche is notoriously quirky when it comes to political and social issues, and environmental issues are no exception. Americans do care about the environment: In 1992, during the last recession, 80 percent agreed that "environmental standards cannot be too high and continuing improvements must be made regardless of cost." The lowest level of support was in 1981 when only 45 percent of Americans agreed. (Source: Wirthlin Worldwide) People are most concerned about tangible environmental problems. A 1999 Gallup poll found 68 percent of Americans saying they worried a great deal about pollution of drinking water and 63 percent about the contamination of soil and water by toxic waste. An unpublished study conducted in the early 1990s by SRI International found that while citizens are overwhelmingly concerned about the fate of "the environment," they're not all talking about the same thing. For one group "the environment" may refer to global challenges. For another, environmental concern can refer to issues closer to home, such as the quality of tap water, local air quality, or the leaky landfill down the road. For yet another group, environmental concern focuses on parks, forests and recreation. And for a fourth group living in the inner cities, concern about the environment may center around urban problems like crime, litter, noise, graffiti and traffic. According to the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF) president Kevin Coyle, people are much more likely to understand an environmental issue when there's a single, direct cause-and-effect relationship. For example, says Coyle, people understand that cars pollute, or that species become extinct when habitat is destroyed. But where there are two or more steps involved--such as energy production from fossil-fuel-fired power plants contributing to climate change, thereby warming ocean waters sufficiently to inhibit the production of plankton for fish, thus impairing the survival of marine life--public understanding drops precipitously.

Since 1990, the percentage of all new products introduced has ranged from 8.7 percent to 13 percent. The high occurred in 1993, the low in 1998. By the end of the decade, the percentage (11.3) was roughly what it was at the beginning (10.1).

But these numbers don't tell the whole story about how far companies have come over the past ten years. Their specific labels notwithstanding, the goods being purchased today are a lot "greener" than they were a decade ago. In many cases, these environmentally improved products make no green marketing claims at all.

The reason: Over the past decade, companies in nearly every sector have significantly improved their efficiency. Many companies have eliminated nearly every ounce of waste from their manufacturing processes. Others have learned how to deliver products and services using significantly fewer resources. A few random examples follow:

• Anheuser-Busch developed an aluminum can that is 33 percent lighter. This reduced use of aluminum combined with an overall recycling plan saves the company $200 million a year.
• Ford Motor Company used more than 60 million two-liter plastic soda bottles in the manufacturing of grille reinforcements, window frames, engine covers and trunk carpets. In 1999, this effort accounted for 7.5 million pounds of plastic.
• McDonald's saved 3,200 tons of paper and cardboard in 1999 by eliminating sandwich containers and replacing them with single-layer flexible sandwich wraps. By switching to lighter drink cups, the company eliminated 1,100 tons of cardboard materials that would have been used for shipping. McDonald's also spent more than $355 million on recycled-content products in a single year.
• Kellogg's plant in Bremen, Germany, employs a wastewater recycling operation that reduces water consumption and wastewater effluent. In India, a Kellogg vapor-absorption system is used to provide plant air conditioning, eliminating the use of ozone-depleting substances. Fluorescent bulbs at the Kellogg plant in New Jersey are sent for recycling, removing potentially hazardous materials from landfills.

	Discussion
	How should environmentally conscious consumers make purchasing decisions? Should consumers patronize companies with exemplary environmental records, even if their individual products might not be considered "green?"

Companies aren't waiting for consumers or activists to figure this out. Bolstered by the business value that can be derived from reducing waste and maximizing resource efficiency, thousands of companies around the world are making dramatic improvements in their operations. In some cases, they have set their goals on nothing less than creating zero waste, operating factories in which every bit of unused material is eliminated, reused, or recycled.

Companies aren't the only ones being proactive in the marketplace. Consumers continue to express their concern about the nature of the goods and services they buy, though their specific concerns and interests have become increasingly more subtle and complex. For many consumers, simple labels like "recycled" or "safer for the environment" no longer offer sufficient information on which to determine "good" products. And there are other societal forces helping to sway consumer opinion about how--and in some cases whether--they spend their dollars.

Clearly, consumer power is continuing to evolve and the changes afoot affect both companies and shoppers. What emerging trends will most shape consumers' ability to help the environment?