Germany’s Blue Angel label has been credited by reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from oil and gas heating appliances by more than 30%, according to the article, as well as reducing the amount of solvents emitted by paints and varnishes by 40,000 tons.

That’s substantial. But, knowing all too well how effectively they can capitalize on the cachet green labels have, some marketers are out-and-out misleading, using ruses like advertising hair products as “CFC neutral.” In fact CFCs have been banned since 1993—making this label, as Siegle puts it, “about as much use as a chocolate teapot.”

We need a simple system, perhaps government-regulated (or at least run by a third-party, because we all know how objective self-declarations are), with standard symbols everyone will learn to recognize. What should they measure? Whether the product is organic? How sustainably it was produced? The size of its carbon footprint? How far it traveled? How fairly it was produced? How recyclable it (and its packaging) is? How it compares to other, similar products in its market niche, as in the traffic-light scheme proposed in the UK? Do we need to know the answers to all of the above in order to make informed, conscientious consumer decisions?

In a hopeful future, as envisioned by an agricultural professor interviewed by Siegle, fair-trade, non-toxic or low-energy labels would be the rule instead than exceptions, a “license to do business.” We’re headed there, I think. Too bad about the massive traffic jam on the way.