Blog » Earthy Goodness

Tate pointed us to this article in the San Jose Mercury News and asked what we thought of it.  Well, here's what I think of it: man o man, people are so dumb.

Here's the story:

1. Between 1997 and 1999, a couple in Sunnyvale planted a bunch of redwood trees in their backyard.  Looking at the overhead photo, it is pretty clear that they did this so that their neighbors did not have a direct view into their living room.
2. In 2001, one of those neighbors installed 10kW worth of solar panels on his house. 
3. Now the trees are tall, and they shade a bunch of his solar panels.
4. He invoked the little-known California Solar Shade Control Act, which is now levying stiff fines on the tree-owners for not cutting down trees that shade solar panels.
5. The court found against the tree-owners, but they are appealing the ruling.

This is dumb on so many levels.  

• Did solar-panel-guy think that trees weren't going to grow?  If there are trees almost shading your site, then within a few years they will shade your site.  By definition, that makes it a bad site for solar panels. 
• For the amount of money that 10kW of solar panels cost, you'd think he could buy some common sense. 
• The law says that trees that were there before the panels were installed are OK, except that it also says that if they grow to cover solar panels, then they're subject to removal/fines.  So... trees are ok, as long as they don't grow?  The law really should have some sort of "reasonable growth" clause.

Personally, I'm totally with the tree-owners on this one.  Mr. Solar Panel was dumb to put his panels under baby redwood trees, and I'm pretty sure it's not fair to fine your neighbors for your stubbornness.

Have you ever read Backpacker Magazine?  It's really great.  We got a subscription through one of those "Your airline miles are going to expire soon" things, and it's one of the only magazines I actually like enough to pay for it when our free year runs out.  Every time I read it, I feel like going outside and hiking somewhere.  (And I don't even like backpacking!  I like sleeping in my own bed.)

Their most recent issue is the 2008 Gear Guide, and they have a special section in it for "Green Gear".  But it's not like most 'Green Product' lists.  Instead of pointing you to all the fanciest bamboo-underwear and recycled-vinyl bags, they actually give you information! Backpacker has done research and compiled a report card of what exactly each 'green' company does.  FiveTen, for example, uses all kinds of scrap and recycled rubber in their shoes. Chaco buys wind credits to offset their energy use, and pays employees to bike to work.

I think it's extra-cool to know exactly what companies are doing to earn the Green label.  Not only does it allow you to support programs you particularly like (hmmm... should I buy from the company that recycles fleece, or the one that is powered by reclaimed methane*?), but it also puts companies on the spot.  If the best a supposedly-green company can come up with is "Our brochures and packaging are 50% post-consumer content", it's not very impressive compared to a company like GoLite (carbon-neutral!  Product recycling!  Alternative transport!). 

Way to go, Backpacker!  It's nice to learn more about these green companies, and decide for ourselves which ones to support.

* CowPower is a supremely great name for a methane program.

Over at TreeHugger, there's a post about SC Johnson's new "GreenList" label.   TreeHugger contends that this is a classic case of greenwashing -- the Greenlist Certification was developed by SC Johnson, so of course they pass with flying colors.  The products are not what most people would label "green", however.

If you read through the Greenlist website,  it's a decent program.  Basically, all raw materials get a 0-3 rating (3 is "best", 0 is "will kill you and your dog"), and they try to make sure that all their products are using 2- and 3-rated products.  So, for example, Windex has been reformulated so that it no longer uses a 0-rated solvent, so it spews fewer VOCs into the air.  And the company made the radical move of using brown instead of bleached-white paperboard for packaging.  (And who rates the ingredients?  Why, they do!)

However, a pretty leaf label does not magically turn "Toilet Duck" into an earth-friendly cleanser.   Glade Plugins will never be anything less than completely foul.  It should be a crime to call that smell "vanilla".  

I started out writing this post thinking, "I dunno, TreeHugger was a little harsh.  At least they're doing something".  And then I got to the "Get the Facts" page on SC Johnson's site, where, in response to a question about whether Glade Plugins have ever started house fires, I read: 

No. It's an example of the kind of irresponsible urban legend that gets forwarded around the Internet and disparages brands.

Oh, CRY ME A RIVER, SC Johnson.  Poor you and your poor disparaged brands.  Those kooky internet forwards sure are hurting your business.  (It did not help that the next page I read was how they're so green they've received awards... from the President!) 

That is, frankly, not a great reason for me to conclude that they are only greenwashing with this silly label, as opposed to actually committing to real change.  GreenList may be a fine program, but it's not fine enough to convince me.  

According to NextEnergyNews.com, there are plans afoot to build a big 30-story tower-o-farms in Las Vegas.  Part food production, part tourist attraction.  

I am a sucker for futuristic farms, especially in tower form.  Look how great that artist's rendering is!  Look at those tiny little lab coats!  Frankly, the article is a little sketchy, what with zero references to actual companies involved (and doesn't this seem more like a Dubai project than a Las Vegas one?), but still!  I love it.