This just in from Climate Counts, the nonprofit group that scores consumer products companies on their green track records: consumer companies are getting greener, but they are still a pretty carbon-intensive lot. On Wednesday, the group was to release its second annual ranking of 56 consumer companies on how they measure greenhouse gas emissions, their plans to reduce them and how fully they disclose those activities. Its intention is to persuade consumers to use the scores in deciding which brands to buy. "We aren't measuring emissions," said Gary Hirshberg, chief executive of Stonyfield Farms and the chairman of Climate Counts. "We are measuring commitment." The average score was 40 out of a possible 100, but most companies scored higher than they did in 2007. Nine had no change. Two - Kraft Foods and Canon - dropped slightly, but Wood Turner, Climate Count's project director, said that was because their disclosures were less detailed. Turner was more disappointed in Apple, which rose 9 points, but still scored only an 11. "They've changed how people think about music, and we'd see a sea change if they took on the issue of climate," he said. Apple, of course, thinks it is doing just that. Kristen Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman, said that two-thirds of Apple's carbon footprint results from energy consumed when people use its products. "We're constantly improving the energy efficiency of our products," she said. Companies with low scores tended to play down the ranking process. Avon Products scored 29 - 18 points higher than last year, but still well below the ranking of competitors like Procter & Gamble and L'Oreal. Susan Arnot Heaney, Avon's director for corporate responsibility, said Avon lacks braggadocio, not environmental commitment. "We're quiet about it, but the bottom line is, Avon is doing the right things," said Heaney, who added that Avon had made strides in conserving energy, minimizing waste and recycling. Craig Berman, a spokesman for Amazon.com - which scored five this year, up from zero in 2007 - also shrugged off the scores. He noted that Amazon had made "significant progress" in reducing packaging and otherwise reducing its carbon footprint. "And all of the information is very easy to find on our Web site," he said. Companies that showed marked improvement were far more exuberant. Google, which had pledged to become carbon neutral, saw its score rise by 38 points, to 55. "Projects that had been years in the making came to fruition," said Bill Weihl, Google's green energy czar. Stonyfield Farms also had an increase in score, to 78 from 63. Last year, Hirshberg said he was embarrassed when Stonyfield, which is owned by Groupe Danone, lost points for inadequate disclosure and a lackluster track record on renewable energy. Since then, Stonyfield has put more green information on its Web site, adopted more environment-friendly packaging, converted to all-organic ingredients and installed a biodigester that produces energy from waste. "I have 10 teams engaged in climate issues, and they do far more than I can do in the corner office," Hirshberg said. Both Hirshberg and Turner acknowledged that they do not know whether their scoring process caused any company to improve its green performance or changed consumer buying patterns. Climate Counts posts its scores on climatecounts.com and has distributed hundreds of thousands of copies of a pocket guide listing the scores for consumers to take shopping with them. As Hirshberg sees it, though, it does not matter what is pushing companies to be more environmentally conscious, just that they are moving there. "We've seen more progress in the green movement in the last 12 months than in my entire life before," he said.