Companies' ability and interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions are under fire this week from both BusinessWeek and Time. While some companies invariably will take the easiest (read least expensive) path, indicting carbon reduction efforts just because some companies try to "greenwash" their activities is going to far.

These top-notch publications are right for reporting on an alarming trend -- that some companies may be playing with the numbers to appear carbon neutral while doing very little to reengineer their business practices to be more sustainable. More accurate and independent auditing is needed. The focus should be on changes that measurably reduce greenhouse gas emissions year over year, not the hard to prove goal of being "carbon neutral."

BusinessWeek makes a failed conclusion by criticizing the idea that reduced footprint can equal increased profits, but then hinging their arguments that renewable energy credits (RECs) are not cost effective and may not really benefit the environment. It doesn't take a science or business degree to realize that buying carbon credits/offsets does not help the bottom line.

What the folks at the Rocky Mountain Institute and other environmentally minded groups espouse is changing manufacturing processes, enhancing energy efficiency, reducing waste, cutting travel, and streamlining the supply chain, which can also enhance profitability. If BusinessWeek can prove the contrary, then they can publish a "Little Green Lies" article, but not by arguing against RECs and carbon offsets, which are not about increasing profitability.