Imagine, if you will, that you are wandering through the aisles of your local grocery store. While shopping for detergent, you find yourself on the horns of an ethical and economic dilemma: you're loyal to one brand, but you find your attention drawn to another product. The new, prettier product costs a couple of dollars more than your regular choice, but it claims that it is better for the environment.

Having read Walletpop's fantastic piece on greenwashing, you wonder if the "greener" product is actually more sustainable, or if it is a scam. You ask yourself if it is really worth the extra money, or if you're paying a lot more for some guilt-inducing marketing. Before you know it, you are embroiled in a wide-reaching philosophical crisis that pits your bank account against your soul in a struggle that makes the Cuban Missile Crisis look like the "Green Stamps" episode of The Brady Bunch. Worst of all, you've got another 30 items on your list!

Thanks to a new website, you may be able to preserve your morals, protect your bank account, and find answers to your question, all in the time it takes you to dial a phone number. The GoodGuide, a scientist-reviewed product-comparison site, attempts to rate products based upon their environmental impact. While it is still only in beta, it already offers information about over 60,000 products, and the site's organizers are planning an expansion into other consumer goods. Best of all, it will soon enable users to access information from their cell phones. The plan, ultimately, is to make it possible for consumers to uncover the green bona fides of almost any product while they're in the store.

Having relied for far too long on a few green companies for most of my morally uplifting household chemicals, I'm pretty excited. With any luck, I'll be able to expand beyond my current dependence upon Seventh Generation, Method, and Dr. Bronner!

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. Green guilt makes him blue.

The latest buzz word, if anyone's keeping score, appears to be greenwashing. It was a headline for a CNN article in the last week. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had a story about greenwashing. Trenton, New Jersey's paper did a story as well. The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Missouri had their own article. Well, you get the idea.

Greenwashing is defined as making something appear environmentally friendly when it's actually not; Think whitewashing the truth, only you're greenwashing it. The "green" bandwagon is a popular one, and virtually every business would like to be on it, but some apparently try a little too hard (the photo with this post shows an example of what at least one reader, who put this on Flicker, believes is greenwashing).

This is why EnviroMedia has set up what they call the greenwashing index, to separate actual environmentally kind products from those that only pretend to be. If you see a TV ad that you think greenwashes a product, or a commercial about a product that really is truly an environmental wonder, you can log onto the site and compliment or trash the heck of aforementioned product.

If you log onto the greenwashing site, you can submit an ad and rate it, or you can just go look at some ads and rate them. If a commercial gets a 1, it's a fantastically environmentally-friendly product, according to the reviewers. If an ad has a 5, it's a joke, environmentally-speaking. It's an ad that greenwashes the product or service.

See, that's why I love this country. Any nation that has a web site where we can officially criticize commercials, even if they are limited to the environment. Greenwashing is a reprensible practice. When greenwashers go amok, they just confuse the public from focusing on what really is pro-environment, like this article, which was written without cutting any trees or using any fuel. You can also read this entire blog without putting smoke and pollution out in the atmosphere.

Geoff Williams is a business journalist and was just greenwashing, lest you somehow missed the subtle way he ended this post.

Read more about the browning of the green ethos-

Moneycentric gardening

Fake green leave you blue?

A lot of the "green" movement seems focused on designing gadgets, clothes, and other items that are, essentially, status symbols. After all, while a hybrid car can save a great deal of gasoline, it also sends a message to the world about the driver's politics, values, and ability to afford an expensive new car.

The same goes for bamboo clothing, hemp hats, designer totes that say "I Am Not a Paper Bag," and all the other high-end fripperies that wealthy people are using to show their environmental bona fides.

The other day, I saw a t-shirt that said "Green Is the New Black." I couldn't agree more: sustainability has become something to wear on your sleeve, instead of a way to live.

Last weekend, my wife and I went to the Green Living Expo on Long Island. A two-day event, it was designed as a way for homeowners to learn about all the emerging green technologies that could help them develop a more environmentally-conscious, energy-conserving lifestyle. We got free tickets from my wife's boss, who runs a green engineering firm, wrangled a weekend invitation from my aunt and uncle, and got ready to experience the cutting edge of the green world.

Maybe we built it up too much.

Admittedly, there were some impressively green items on display. We learned about bamboo clothing (only $35 for a t-shirt!), solar-powered attic fans, bio-composters, and other cool technologies. We also got to see a nice variety of hippies, new-agers, and other assorted lunatics. As expected, there was a weedy-looking guy with a beard who was trying to sell his book about hiking the Appalachian trail, various people hawking crystals, and more than a few natural-remedy folks. While I'll acknowledge that natural remedies are less polluting and invasive than traditional medicine, I have yet to figure out how aligning my chakrahs will help me use less energy and reduce my carbon footprint. To put it mildly, the snake-oil quotient was pretty high.