The Rough Guide to Shopping with a Conscience looks to provide some guidance for getting behind the layers of obfuscation and presents the issues that need to be considered in many of these decisions. The book is divided into three parts. Part I: Issues lays out the alternatives and some of the standards for ethical decisions. Part II: Products & companies goes through different categories in more detail. And Part III: Find out more deals briefly with sources for further information.

The Issues section looks at five approaches to ethical decisionmaking: Going green, Fair trade, Boycotts, Selective shopping, and Buying locally. The authors recognize the complexities in all of these issues, and point out the (sometimes conflicting and contradictory) arguments that can be made about deciding one way or another. In most circumstances, they lay out the different viewpoints, but do not offer any definitive answer, because no such solution exists.

"Once you start thinking about all the positive and negative implications of what you buy and use, it quickly becomes clear that there's no one-size-fits-all approach — no simple list of moral checks and crosses. For one thing, there are always conflicting priorities. Is it better, for instance, to support the local independent cafe around the corner, or buy a fairly traded cup from the global chain across the road? Is it "ethical" to favor local products — doing your bit to limit envionmentally harmful transportation — or does that mean harming impoverished countries that are eager to export?"

The middle section on Products & companies collects information about all manner of products and services, and examines the various concerns and tradeoffs involved in searching for the most ethical choice in a given category. More detailed discussion of particular issues for a given topic. Food is a multifaceted topic, and the discussion includes issues such as the use of antibiotics, by catch in fishing, organic standards (and alternatives to the 'organic' label), vegetarianism and the humane treatment of animals, genetically modified organisms, and more are all discussed.

For example, in many cases, the terms we think are indicative of preferred products may not be as meaningful as we believe. "Free range" poultry, for example, conjures a vision of chickens wandering a barnyard, but "in theory, a coop or stall door could be opened for five minutes a day to satisfy such minimal requirements." We can make well-meaning choices, but what we are actually supporting may be a very different thing. It is difficult to know all of these things, because so much energy is spent to convince us of some beautiful image, rather than the truth of the situation. With fuller knowledge, we can make more meaningful choices.

Clothing, money matters, household goods (including cleaning products, furniture, toys, and more), and transportation are all covered in greater depth, as well. Most topic areas have a few listings for websites of suppliers and producers of products or sources for further information.

The final Find out more section is a brief collection of resources for gathering further information and a little bit of information about how to research a company. The websites and books and magazines listed may have some usefulness, but this is more of an addendum than a crucial part of the book.

There is a lot of good information in this book. It is less the sort of thing one should read cover to cover than it is a reference to keep on hand. If many of these concepts are still fresh with you, it is likely to be too much to absorb all at once. The authors do a very good job of pointing out the differing opinions and the tradeoffs involved in these choices, because none of this is black and white. Rather than feeding pat answers, this is a book that will prick at your conscience, and help you to address those decisions you make as a consumer and as a citizen with more thought and care.

Editor's note: We're very pleased to welcome Max Lindberg to our writing team. The publisher of the Lindberg Report podcast, now a part of The Fuels Report, Max is a retired broadcast journalist. We're very happy to have his wealth of experience on the team! Stay tuned — once we get the technical kinks worked out, Max will be producing the first GO podcast series, "Greening the Golden Years."

So you're going to join the May 15th MySpace members Gas Out. Good for you! We need to show those greedy, and not necessarily nice, oil-rich countries in the Mideast that we don't like their attitudes and hit 'em where in counts: in the pocketbook.

What a great idea: 72-million MySpace members avoiding gas stations for one day. I didn't do the math ( too complicated for me!), but based on a fill-up costing between $20 and $30, the boycott would cost the Middle Eastern oil companies more than $2,000,000.000 in revenue. That's $2 Billion. Wow!

But, wait a minute. There's only one hitch to this great idea. To pull it off, all 72 million who drive a gasoline-fueled vehicle would have to leave their cars, trucks or whatever, home for 24 hours and take a bus, ride a bike, walk or hitch a ride with someone who doesn't care. You can bet your baby-blue-booties it ain't gonna work.

And what about those who do avoid filling stations for 24-hours and still drive? Well, bunky, think about this. On May 14, the price of gas will be, let's say for the sake of argument, $2.85 a gallon. So you drive on the 15th, and you burn several gallons of gas, which eventually has to be replaced. On the 16th, the price of petrol jumps to $2.95 a gallon. So on your next fill-up, you'll pay $.10 more for a gallon of gas, and the oil companies would have made a modest profit anyway.

But, if you must, join the "gas out", I'm sure they'll notice your absence at the pump.

Why not take a more pro-active approach? Drive a little less than usual, join a car pool, support the use of alternative fuels and use them if appropriate for your vehicle. Use less energy any way you can. The emphasis here is not to "punish" the oil companies, but to save our environment. It's the least we can do."

Oh, and if all this sounds very familiar, you're right. According to Snopes, the Urban Legends people, this particular message, or a variance, has been around since 1999. Read the above paragraph.