difficulties, but then practitioners and national organizations have to figure out how to apply these guidelines. Most forms of LCA limit themselves to comparing generic product types rather than individual products. Obviously there can be a great difference between how different brands of lumber, or flooring, or insulation are produced. Designers probably want LCA data based on industry averages, but procurement officers and specification writers need information on specific products. BEES is one notable case of a life-cycle tool that is attempting to accumulate individual product data, and obviously there will be a growing need for this kind of analysis (Lippiatt, 2002). There is an endemic problem in LCA with the contradiction between the need for detailed and accurate data on one hand, and capitalist competition on the other. Many companies are fearful of revealing proprietary information about their products and production processes. They do not want to give away trade secrets and a possible competitive advantage, but they are also fearful that an LCA may show that their products do not stack up well. Besides giving an edge to their competitors, it may also give ideological fodder to environmentalists and regulators who want to clean up company practices. Nevertheless, there are major efforts afoot to increase the amount of reliable data. BEES has a reasonably successful BEES Please program to entice manufacturers to provide data. And the US government is behind a major effort, organized through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and coordinated by the Ontario-based ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute, to produce a national public life-cycle