GREEN is to be the colour of choice this year, but we’re not talking about the catwalks here. Financial institutions have become savvy about catering for customers who want their money used in an environmentally friendly and ethical way. Now, as any shopper who has visited a farmers’ market will testify, going green does not always come cheap. But if you prize saving the planet above saving money, a lighter wallet should not cause you to lose sleep, as Caitlin Moran finds on pages 4-5.

The real stumbling block comes when companies push a product as green when it isn’t. Consumers can find themselves paying more for a service that comes with a nice environmentally friendly name and not much else. One case in point is energy supply. Homeowners can choose from a wide array of “green” energy tariffs. For example, British Gas offers Climate Aware or Green Electricity, while EDF has its Green Tariff and a Climate Balance deal.

Consumers choosing these deals would be forgiven for thinking that they are doing their bit to cut down on CO2 emissions. After all, if they ask for renewable energy, the companies must have to use more renewable energy, right? Er, no. Companies must meet targets

on using energy from renewable sources. This year 6.7 per cent of their energy must come from renewable sources. Many suppliers are merely repackaging this energy as a green tariff, so customers signing up to the tariff are making little difference to the amount of CO2 produced overall.

Furthermore, there are three separate systems of certificates that account for all renewable energy, which means that the same renewable energy can be counted up to three times.

Companies are also unafraid of inflating their green credentials. Scottish & Southern Energy was rapped by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) in October for claiming that it planted enough trees to offset the CO2 emmisions of its power2 customers. The ASA found that there was no evidence to substantiate the claim.

A report by the National Consumer Council (NCC), published last month and available at www.ncc.org.uk, found that of the twelve green supply tariffs, only two are going farther than they are required to by law. The exceptions are Good Energy and Scottish & Southern’s RSPB tariff. The fiendishly complicated system of certificates and credits ensures that trying to make sense of this issue is as tricky as tackling astrophysics in Mayan.

To add insult to injury, all homeowners, whether they choose a green tariff or not, are already paying £7 a year to help energy companies to meet their legal requirements. This will rise to £20 a year in 2010-11. The energy companies keep shtoom about this.

The NCC and Energywatch, the energy watchdog, are calling for an enforceable code to compel suppliers to be transparent about their tariffs. But there seems to be confusion about who is in charge. Ofgem, the regulator, says that it does not get involved in tariffs and thinks that the ASA should be in charge of this. But the ASA can respond only to customer complaints, and it is difficult to complain if you can’t fathom what’s going on.

While being grilled by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about this issue last month, Alistair Buchanan, the chief executive of Ofgem, suggested that the Government, or more specifically, the DTI and Defra, needed to take a lead.

I have an alternative suggestion: that Ofgem puts its dentures in and sorts this out.

Tax inspectors going above and beyond the call of duty

EVERYONE likes to receive recognition for a job well done. A thank-you from an employer is heartening. A congratulatory pint down the pub is even better. But what really gets the pulse racing, as City bankers and tax inspectors know, is cold, hard cash.

While the sky-high bonuses awarded to City workers are well documented, it emerged this week that tax inspectors are also being given cash perks linked to their performance.

The only difference is that while City boys are awarded bonuses for making money, tax inspectors get a cash reward for taking

money — money that has inadvertently, or deliberately, slipped down the side of the tax sofa, thereby escaping the clutches of Gordon Brown. But this is much more than a few old coppers; tax compliance officers have been ordered to increase the tax they recover by more than a quarter over the next year.

We should not be surprised. It is no secret that the Chancellor doesn’t want a single penny to fall through his tax net. His twiddling with trust legislation, his failure to increase inheritance tax thresholds adequately and his blurring of the boundary between tax planning and tax evasion are all testament to that.

But if you have yet to fill in your self-assessment tax return, do remember that any irregularities will now be investigated by an inspector who is no longer depending solely on a commitment to his or her job to make sure that no stone is left unturned. Instead, inspectors can claim a bonus of up to £2,000, depending on how much cash they bring home for the Treasury.

Now Mr Brown should be congratulated for his enlightened employment practices. It has been proven that reward schemes boost morale among employees, promote staff retention and can have a positive effect on employee performance. Instead, however, I would like to congratulate myself, the Times Money team and each and every one of you — after all, we are the ones footing the bill.