I love coffee. I’m a three-cup-a-day person, minimum. I’d drink more, but I’m also one of those people who can’t drink caffeine after 4 pm if I have any hope of getting a good night’s sleep. Working at a university, I’m fortunate to have a student-run coffee shop in Miriam Hall, right where my office and classrooms are. The Blend Express, as the coffee shop is called, only serves “FairTrade” coffee, meaning the coffee beans have been purchased at a price from farmers that allow the farmer to have a sustainable farming lifestyle.

At least, that’s what I think it means.

How do I know how much the farmer who grew the coffee beans in my coffee this morning was paid? And how do I know if what that farmer was paid is sufficient? I have no idea. I have to rely on some organization, using standards I don’t know anything about, to say that one particular coffee bean is “FairTrade,” and others without the label are presumably grown by evil warlords hiring crippled ten-year-olds to pick the coffee beans in between hourly beatings.

In spite of my self-professed ignorance, third-party certifications are important to us as consumers. FairTrade coffee. Organic food. UL-certified appliances. Energy Star appliances. Vista Ready. Chartered Financial Analyst. Certified Public Accountant. ISO 9000. Consumer Reports Best Buy. These certifications surround us, and help assuage both our desire to consume as well as our guilt in doing so.

Yesterday, Wendy Bounds published a story in the Wall Street Journal exploring “Eco-Seals,” certifications about a product’s environmental friendliness. There are many of these certifications running around, from the EPA’s “Energy Star” program to Home Depot’s “Eco Options.” Some of these certifications cost companies money to obtain, while others are free. Obtaining at least one green certification seems to be easy enough – one interviewer in the article indicates that “if you want green certification bad enough, you can get it.”

The result is consumer confusion on a massive scale. No one really knows what the labels mean any more, and some consumers are angry. One consumer interviewed for the article would prefer a “universal” green seal. She says: “We can only do so much as a consumer. The government needs to come up with a stamp and someone needs to check the product, and there needs to be liability if they aren’t telling the truth.”

This got me thinking about the possibility of a universal green seal. While it no doubt would be helpful to consumers, I think that ultimately such a program is not workable, for one simple reason: there is too much disagreement on what it means to be “Green.” Now, I understand that all certification programs are ultimately subjective, and that reasonable people can disagree on what is organic enough, safe enough, or high quality enough. When it comes to environmental impact, though, where would such a program even begin? Carbon footprint? Carbon reduction potential? Power savings (and if so, over what baseline)? Barrel of oil impact? Impact on drinking or soil water in production? Recyclability? Hazardous or toxic waste? Bio-degradability? The possibilities seem almost as endless as the possible permutations of “Eco,” “Green,” “Choice,” “Terra,” with “Certified,” “Standards,” and “Seal.”

In spite of the challenges, I worry that without government regulation, green certification will spin out of control as more companies seek to cash in on consumer desire to minimize environmental impact. In general I don’t believe consumers are dumb, and as more eco-seals proliferate, consumer fatigue and numbness will surely follow. So what do you think? Should the government think about regulating these eco-seals (like the FDA regulates the “organic” label), or should consumers just stop being lazy and do their own homework before making a purchase based on environmental concerns?