Underwriters Laboratory’s UL Environment, which is certifying green products and verifying green product claims, has just announced the first product to be rated: Serious Materials’ EcoRock drywall. The product appears genuine, based on the excellent information on the company website, and it’s also got Cradle to Cradle certification.

While the UL assessment has UL’s brand clout behind it, they could add assurance and help alleviate consumer confusion over what’s truly friendly for the environment by providing complete disclosure about what their certifications mean on their website. Right now, there’s nothing on the UL Environment website that makes the label credible (except for the aforementioned brand power). By comparison, the Cradle to Cradle site has full disclosure.

Some questions they can answer: How and what are they testing? What is the process? What are the benchmarks and standards? Are they only looking at claims made or are they also comparing the product to similar ones? Do they consider what’s possible, so that if a company is only doing the bare minimum, it counts less?

Eco-labels are proliferating at a pretty fast clip. If they’re going to clear up confusion and help consumers sort out conflicting environmental claims and know what makes one thing greener than another, certifiers (and product marketers) need to help educate.

For more on the UL rollout, see Sustainable Industries’ excellent article. It was also covered at GreenBiz.com.

A new report from the World Wildlife Fund, “From Workplace to Anyplace: Assessing the Global Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions With Virtual Meetings and Telecommuting,” is worth checking out. It includes background research on the drivers for and barriers to adopting telecommunications technologies among policy makers, business leaders and end users. Not surprisingly, saving the environment isn’t a key driver—in fact, it’s the lowest-ranked reason for videoconferencing. Efficiency, saving money and social improvements top the list, confirming that to encourage lasting behavioral change, communicators need give people a payoff beyond simply doing the right thing and feeling good about it.

As an aside, the headline, “Report: Teleworking Could Cut U.S. Climate Emissions in Half” on the Sustainable Life Media news item first alerted me to the study. It made me say “Wow!” But it tells a different story than the research report, which estimates that telecommuting and virtual meeting tools worldwide could cut CO2 emissions by about 3.5 million tons by 2050—the equivalent of half the United States’ current emissions. The headline implies that if U.S. businesses boosted telecommuting, virtual meetings and the like, we’d cut our emissions in half—I only wish that were so.

Update, 4.04: Sustainable Life Media has changed the opening sentence of its piece in response to my comments. I have to add (as I should have the first time around), SLM has terrific editorial standards, and if they were less than pros, a slip like this wouldn’t be worth a mention.

The more analyses I read about how this or that technology won’t deliver the kind of energy (or whatever) we need, or can’t deliver enough of it, the more I think the primary challenge we face in pursuing sustainability is not technology—it’s how we think about solutions. (I’m not alone; there’s a recent book on the topic, The Power of Sustainable Thinking, by Bob Doppelt. If you’ve read it, please chime in.)

The negative conclusions of these analyses are often based on the assumption that we can’t—or won’t—change the way we do things. Because we don’t want to, or powerful interests don’t want us to, or it’s just not convenient. But, as venture capitalist Vinod Khosla points out in a recent interview, radical social change is hardly unprecedented (he cites the mobile phone, e-mail, and personal computers), “It just feels improbable before it happens.”

The upshot for communicators is, we need to make change seem possible as well as desirable. We need to make change seem exciting, fulfilling, status-enhancing—whatever it takes. (And yes, those are all emotional concepts, because our “rational” rejection of change often comes from an emotional fear of it, played upon by those with an interest in maintaining the status quo.) Not so long ago, a lot of people were chanting “Yes we can!” We need to keep chanting that—about more than a presidential race.