A weekly roundup of EcoSalon’s top stories.

Angelika Dreams Organic (A.D.O.) clothing is all about feminine essentials for spring infused by the works of Monet, but it’s also one of the greenest lines going. We caught up with A.D.O. designer Angelika Krishna for an interview on how she went from considering a denim line to a chemical free ready-to-wear line.

You’re so damn smart, aren’t you? Well, do you know enough about plug in or electric car technology to hold your own in a conversation? Brush up with A Glossary Of Car Terms to Recharge Your Thinking. You’ll be quizzed later.

You thought the sustainable world was filled with big green huggie bears and organic trees heavy with communal bounty? Well, sometimes, it’s not all what it’s cut out to be. In Bad Blood on the Home(Steading) Front, writer K. Emily Bond wants to know if “urban” homesteading’s reputation of being a crowd-sourced and friendly philosophy for living is being capitalized on. See what you think and don’t stop until you get to the heated comments at the bottom.

Frito Lay may be a natural at greenwash, but they’re certainly not green. In The Green Plate: Frito Lay, How Green You’re Not, columnist Vanessa Barrington writes: “Remember that corporations are in business to maximize their profits and everything they do is aimed at that goal. Though some corporations may do things that benefit some people some of the time, the ultimate goal is profits. Any advertising, anywhere, should be evaluated with a critical eye.”

Sex By Numbers columnist Abigail Wick was recently in Barcelona with a friend and caught up with some very attractive, innocent bystanders to ask them about (what else?) sex. In Sex by Numbers: El Amor en Espana: Seven Lovers, One Weekend, Wick collects her top seven favorite philosophies of love and we are left to fan ourselves…

Image: Moe

The post The Friday 5, Vol. 13 appeared first on EcoSalon.

Getting acquainted with bamboo’s true environmental impact.

When sustainable fashion first burst onto the scene, we were introduced to a number of “eco-friendly” fabrics, such as organic cotton, tencel, hemp and bamboo. Each carried sustainable properties, whether that meant being free of pesticides or fertilizers, produced in a closed-loop system, or made from durable and renewable materials.

At first, bamboo fabric made a lot of sense. Bamboo is one of the fastest growing plants on earth, with one species recorded growing three feet in a single day. Bamboo does not use or rely on chemicals, fertilizers or insecticides to grow. Nor does it require as much water as alternatives such as cotton, where one t-shirt requires 400 gallons of water to produce from start to finish.

In comparison to cotton, bamboo is known to improve watersheds, purify air quality, and remove toxins from contaminated soil, all with less water consumption and no harmful environmental impact. Bamboo is often planted to prevent soil erosion, it can absorb up to 12 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare and it produces 30% more oxygen than any hardwood forest of similar size. It can also be selectively harvested annually, and it naturally regenerates without replanting.

Bamboo seemed like a miracle fiber – and in a sense, it is. It’s turning it into fabric that’s the more complicated issue.

Bamboo fabric can be made in one of two ways – chemically or mechanically. The chemical process has been met with much resistance from sustainable fashion experts because this process requires toxic chemicals. These chemicals, sodium hydroxide and carbon disulfide, change the genetic structure of natural bamboo, turning it into rayon. But the disposal of these chemicals can lead to soil and water contamination.

The bigger issue is how bamboo is being marketed and sold – both to the fashion industry and the consumer. Both groups are drawn to its (questionable) claims of biodegradability, its softness, and let’s face it, its price point. Yet without knowing the facts about how that fabric was processed, or understanding its real positive attributes, how can one really be sure of the impact? Some marketers will rely on the fact that we immediately think it’s good because it comes from a plant that carries many good properties. They stick a panda bear or bamboo shoots on the label, and that seems to be enough to convince everyone of its sustainability.

You may be familiar with the Lyocell process, more commonly known as Tencel – a process that also requires various chemicals. However, Tencel is made in a closed-loop system that allows for the chemical effluent to be treated and recycled, thus making it a more sustainable option than rayon. Those of us in the sustainable fashion business have been waiting years for the bamboo industry to adopt this style of processing.

A Canadian brand, Miik, is challenging the status quo by using bamboo processed in a closed-loop system. In addition to tracking the bamboo used from the source, Miik has also earned a bevvy of certifications including USDA organic, Oeko-Tex Standard 100, and OCIA (Organic Crops Improvement Association). Even better is their processing method.

Miik

According to Bamboo Tex (the company that develops Miik’s bamboo yarn ), the bamboo is processed in a hermetic container where 100% of the chemicals used are trapped and contained rather than being released into their factory, environment or atmosphere. Miik also claims that each step of the process is supervised for adherence to company policy, brand commitment and China’s environmental ethical standards.

Within one week, I discovered yet another great example in Five Bamboo, which I recommend you check out for a more comprehensive explanation of the process (including diagrams).

Five Bamboo

Mechanically processed bamboo is also considered sustainable. Rather than extracting fiber, as in the case with regenerated cellulose, mechanical processing involves the separation and extraction of fibers directly from the bamboo shoots. However, it is a multi-step process that is more costly, and therefore is not commonly practiced.

The net situation is that bamboo fabric still poses some difficult issues for both the ethical fashion designer and the consumer. The use of bamboo plants in the textile industry is still relatively new, and too few companies are using the more sustainably processed fibers, although that is changing.

Regardless of how it is processed, some experts believe it is more important to be able to make an informed decision about environmental impact before ruling any fabric out. According to sustainability expert Lorraine Smith, we should all be taking an impact approach, rather than a prescriptive one. She believes it is more important for designers to be measuring, managing and demonstrating impact. Without data, aren’t we all just guessing?

Smith also feels that the real problem lies in making false claims or claims that don’t make any sense – whether it is about bamboo, cotton or any other fabric. “If they have certification to demonstrate that they are making a difference along the way,” says Smith, “Then it isn’t greenwash. It’s not about the fiber, it’s about the whole product life cycle.”

For more on Smith’s position on bamboo, read her article “To Be or Not To Be Biodegradable.”

Main image: odonoata98

The post Bamboo, We Hardly Know Ye appeared first on EcoSalon.

In my local market I stand in the “not food” aisle and look at the dishwashing liquid. I remember an old TV commercial pitching presumably safe, “mild” Palmolive in which a manicurist, Madge, tells a woman whose nails she’s tending, “you’re soaking in it.” I always think about that ad when I buy this junk, figuring maybe I can find something that’s at least a little non-toxic. Increasingly, though, I’m perplexed as virtually every brand’s label screams: “Pick me! Pick me! I’m eco-all that! You can bathe in me! I swear!” Can this be true? Uh, no, it can’t.

Greenwashing, the tsunami of eco-friendly white noise we experience each day in brand-land, is everywhere, taking advantage of our better instincts and our lack of self-education regarding the products we buy. Every day, real live Mad Men are pulling the eco-cover over our eyes to sell us stuff based on vague and sometimes false claims that what they’re selling is good for us, the environment, and all creatures, great and small. Acknowledging this, and in an effort to protect us, the Federal Trade Commission released its “Green Guides” in 1992 (revised in 1996 and 1998) to “help marketers ensure that the claims they make are true and substantiated.” Hmm – 1998. A dozen years ago.

Last week, the FTC proposed updates to those Green Guides designed to make them easier for companies to understand and use. The changes include new guidance on marketers’ use of “product certifications and seals of approval, renewable energy claims, renewable materials claims, and carbon offset claims.” (They’re looking to hear from you, by the way, on proposed changes until December 10, after which they’ll decide which changes to make final.)

In a brief homage to ridiculously diplomatic language, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said: “In recent years, businesses have increasingly used “˜green’ marketing to capture consumers’ attention and move Americans toward a more environmentally friendly future. But what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things. The proposed updates to the Green Guides will help businesses better align their product claims with consumer expectations.”

Yeah, well, nice companies need nice reminders every so often, I guess.

Here are some highlights (and we quote):

Degradable: For solid waste products other than those destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities, the proposal clarifies that the “reasonably short period of time” for complete decomposition is no more than one year after customary disposal… Marketers should not make unqualified degradable claims for items destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities because decomposition will not occur within one year.

(Read: If it’s still going to be around a year after it’s been used, it’s not “degradable.”)

Free-of: Even if true, claims that an item is free-of a substance may be deceptive if the item has substances that pose the same or similar environmental risk as the substance not present.

(Read: You can’t play with poisons and say you’re poison free.)

General Environmental Benefit (e.g., “green,” “eco-friendly”): Marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims. They are difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate. Qualifications should be clear and prominent, and should limit the claim to a specific benefit.

(Read: Enough with the eco-babble. If it doesn’t mean anything, don’t say it.)

There’s more good stuff in this long overdue update. Take a quick perusal of the proposed changes and you’ll get a sense of what’s been going down (i.e. overlooked) in the world of greenwashing over the past twelve years. After all, for my money, this isn’t about fixing something that ain’t broke.

Image: Samuel Mann; See also: GOOD

The post Truth Be Told: Changes Coming in ‘Green’ Marketing Guidelines appeared first on EcoSalon.

We do love our green gadgets. But though we do profess more than a passing degree of eco-acumen, the reality is (shhh!) it sometimes takes an inordinate amount of time for us to truly understand what we’re talking about. (I’m talking about me, really, but I’m passing the buck here to the entire EcoSalon team. Again, shh.) So I’ve found a book for “us”! Green Gadgets For Dummies.

Part of the now classic “Dummies” series, the book covers “everything from iPods to energy-efficient home entertainment devices to solar laptop chargers and crank-powered gizmos.” It’s written by New York Times Green Inc. blogger Joe Hutsko, who’s also contributed some seriously non-dummy stuff to Fortune, MSNBC.com, Wired, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, Macworld, PC World and others. His personal blog, JOEyGADGET, is also pretty cool.

The book’s basically a primer on researching and purchasing green gadgets, and also provides pointers on using what you already have in smarter, more environmentally friendly ways. It includes info on financial savings, reducing your carbon footprint and even ways to avoid “greenwashing” – being deceived by BS green PR and marketing practices. There are also chapters on green lifestyle, computer energy savings specific to both Mac and Windows, mobile phones and recycling.

The book is now a part of the EcoSalon reference library, for all of us (well, for me) to use when needed.

The post One for the Reference Section: Green Gadgets for Dummies! appeared first on EcoSalon.

Starbucks: people either love ’em or loathe ’em. My husband likes their coffee and admires their business brains. I, on the other hand, can’t stand them for their homogenized, yuppie style. Having grown up in grunge-era Seattle, once a land of artsy coffee shops crammed with kitschy sofas and local color, cookie-cutter Starbucks look to me like a department store: void of soul and chock-full of useless merchandise.

But how bad is Starbucks, really? I decided to find out.

1. Clean water is such a precious commodity in the world these days, but Starbucks didn’t seem to care. Their “leave the tap running all day” policy created an eco-scandal to the tune of 23 million litres wasted every day. Less than a year later, they’re installing water-saving faucets which purport to reduce water wastage by 150 gallons per day, per store. Note, they only changed their wasteful ways after they got caught.

2. Although some people claim that having a Starbucks in the neighborhood is actually good for local mom & pop cafes, the long-running belief is that Starbucks turns the uniquely local neighborhood vibe into cookie-cutter corporate…well, crap. Perhaps it’s really just a matter of taste, but most of your dollars spent at a Starbucks location will end up in the pockets of distant executives – and not circulate in your local economy.

3. Ever keen to new marketing strategies, Starbucks has decided to co-opt the unique neighborhood vibe. What you think is your local indie cafe might actually be a Starbucks in disguise. To try and get the business of economic locavores, Starbucks has sent out scouts to cop the look and feel of various neighborhoods, then create a “unique” coffeeshop under a different name. Some might call this a brilliant business strategy, but I think it’s pretty underhanded.

4. Then there was the Ethiopian coffee debacle. In 2006, the Ethiopian government attempted to trademark regional coffees such as Sidamo and Harar because these specialty brews sell for up to $26 a pound, with only about $1 getting back to the Ethiopian coffee farmers. Starbucks, working through the National Coffee Association, blocked Ethiopia’s trademark bid, helping ensure the continuation of poverty in an already impoverished region.

5. Did you hear about the tip scandal? A former (and clearly disgruntled) Starbucks barista successfully sued the corporation on behalf of all California baristas in a class action law suit. Starbucks was ordered to pay $100 million to baristas to make up for tips that had been given to shift supervisors. It sounds like the ultimate low blow, but there is a grey area here: although California law prohibits managers and supervisors from receiving tips, Starbucks’ shift supervisors do help customers and make coffee. They’re paid much more than the baristas; do they also deserve a cut of the tips?

6. After years of customers haggling them for recycling bins, or at least recyclable cups, Starbucks has finally launched a recycling pilot program. Puh-lease…coffee shops the world over have already had recycling and composting systems in place for years. Starbucks should have been able to do better, and faster – why has it taken them so long to jump on the greenwagon?

7. Starbucks has decided to increase their purchases of Fair Trade coffee – but that’s only after years of pressure from Fair Trade groups. Considering that the worldwide coffee trade is a huge source of oppression and poverty in third world countries, buying Fair Trade goes far to support better wages and working conditions for coffee farmers. So far, only a small percentage of Starbucks coffee will actually be Fair Trade Certified, but they’ve still created a marketing campaign around it. I’d expect better from a large corporation; since Starbucks is large enough for the world to pay attention to its products, they could push some powerful change by using their influence for the greater good.

8. No matter what they do to be a little more green, if Starbucks won’t pour coffee into a reusable mug, they’ll never win my heart. My husband informed me of his own infuriating Starbucks experience where they refused to fill his travel mug, instead handing him his latte in a disposable paper cup and telling him he could fill his travel mug himself. He’s not the only one who’s had eco efforts thwarted like this at Starbucks.

9. And besides, McDonald’s beat Starbucks in a coffee taste test. Ouch!

So what do you think? Personally, I think Starbucks can do better and set a positive example for the coffee business in general, but they won’t do that unless they feel the heat from customers.

ALSO CHECK OUT

15 Reasons Not to Go to McDonald’s

Why You Should Never Buy from a Pet Store

The 11 Dirty Little Secrets Your Grocery Store Is Hiding

Image: D3 San Francisco

The post 9 Reasons to Stay Out of Starbucks appeared first on EcoSalon.

As the recession cuts deeper into the profits of big food companies, many brands are downsizing their portions in a bid to cut costs. In some cases, they are also downgrading their ingredients. But as chocolate giant Cadbury is discovering – you mess with your iconic brands at your peril.

Cadbury’s current advertising campaign involves eyebrow gymnastics from two children. Meanwhile, it has made some eyebrow-raising changes to the formulation of its popular Dairy Milk block in Australia and New Zealand. The new chocolate block is smaller, contains fewer cocoa solids (you know, the part that actually makes it chocolate) and it contains environmentally destructive palm oil. It now finds itself at the centre of a PR storm, having incurred the wrath of shoppers, foodies and environmentalists alike. Whittakers, a rival chocolate brand in New Zealand, is taking advantage of the furore with this comparative shopping ad.

The first change is simple – the 250g block now weighs just 200g. The packaging has been redesigned and the squares of chocolate shrunken so the block actually appears to be the same size. Chocolate lovers are furious at the resizing and the fact that the price has not dropped accordingly and have formed a protest site, at choclovers.org, and have been spreading the message via Twitter and a Facebook protest group. Cadbury says in the FAQ on its website (Australia and New Zealand) that it has actually reduced the wholesale price but it’s up to retailers whether to pass it on.

Product resizing is annoying for consumers but nothing new – and given that people eat more when the serving sizes are bigger, it might not be such a bad thing for the public health. It’s the second change that is more concerning from an environmentalist’s point of view.

Cadbury has reduced the amount of cocoa solids from 26% to 21% and added nasty vegetable fats – specifically palm oil – to compensate. The company claims that it’s done this, not to save costs as you might think, but to improve the customer experience.

We have done this for a number of reasons. Primarily it is because our consumers have been telling us that we could improve their enjoyment of our chocolate by making it slightly softer to bite. Vegetable fat helps deliver this softness whilst at the same time maintaining our chocolate’s great taste.

As a chocolate lover myself, I’m not so credulous that I believe that Cadbury has done this for my benefit. I know a bit about food and chocolate and there is no doubt that palm oil is a poor substitute for the real thing. I am pretty sure most chocolate fans would feel the same way – despite what Cadbury’s “independent research” might show. I’m probably not their market, though – I tend to go for more quality brands such as Green & Black’s, the organic brand now owned by Cadbury, and Lindt.

However, there are millions of people who do buy Cadbury chocolate so the formulation of their products is part of a bigger problem. The forests of southeast Asia have been ravaged by deforestation, spelling disaster for wildlife such as orangutans and tigers and for the climate. Palm oil production is one of the leading causes of this – both historically and currently.

The main customers of palm oil are food manufacturers looking for cheap fats – though demand is also rising because of its utility as a biofuel. The rainforest of the Congo could be next, with China set to establish a giant palm oil plantation in the African country. It is ironic that Cadbury’s last big advertising campaign involved a gorilla.

Cadbury claims:

We are Board members of the RSPO [Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil] and purchase Green Palm certificates that independently certify the fact that the palm oil we purchase has come from sustainable sources.

The RSPO has a set of standards, its Principles & Criteria, that define practices for sustainable palm oil production. These include the use of appropriate best practices by growers and millers, the responsible development of new plantings and environmental responsibility and the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity.

All well and good, except that the RSPO is widely regarded as greenwash – members have to do little more than pay a membership fee. Even the bible for big business, the Wall Street Journal reports that it’s a problem. The Green Palm Certificates, meanwhile, allow backers to invest in sustainable production without necessarily using the product. Even if Cadbury could be certain that it is buying palm oil from sustainable sources, which is dubious, it is still creating new demand for palm oil. Replacing existing palm oil for a ‘sustainable’ alternative is one thing, but it does not help matters if it is additional consumption.

No one seems convinced – and the backlash is huge. In most recent news, the Auckland Zoo has stopped stocking Cadbury, in the name of the orangutans.

Image via Treehugger

The post Cadbury Adds Palm Oil to Its Chocolate appeared first on EcoSalon.

Green-wash – verb: the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. – TerraChoice

Earth Day seems to have brought out the green in everyone, especially businesses. Wherever we turn, we are being bombarded by advertisements and articles telling us about green services, products and specials. Everyone from Treehugger to Huffington Post and CNN are talking about things you can do today (and this month) – and Grist is even cheeky enough to say Screw It. Green is everywhere, but unfortunately, so is greenwash.

But as we all know, not all companies are completely honest with their green claims. Some, it seems, are quite happy to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

But how do we, as consumers, know whether they are greenwashing or not?

Whenever I’m not sure, I turn to TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company, who, based on research and surveys, created a Seven Sins of Greenwashing guide that helps determine green fact from fiction. (We’ve previously covered greenwashing, if you want to learn more.) It’s a helpful resource to keep in mind at any time of year, not just Earth Day.

Read the full 2009 Seven Sins of Greenwashing Report to learn more about these commonly practiced sins and how to recognize them.

Image: macrophile

The post Greenwashing Earth Day appeared first on EcoSalon.

The good news is that there are more green-minded consumers than ever before and travel companies are taking note. The bad news in that in the rush to offer eco-tourism, sometimes the eco part gets diluted or even trampled on.

Eco-tourism doesn’t just mean tourism in a wilderness area. If it did, then tourist space flights would qualify – despite the obvious energy cost involved in blasting into orbit.

In my book the number one rule for eco-tourism is to do no harm. Exploring beautiful wilderness areas is fantastic – it restores the soul and raises awareness of our beautiful world – but not if you are actually hurting the places you have come to see.

Many of the big cruises to Antarctica bill themselves as eco-tourism, yet cruise ships are highly polluting and many of the activities – going ashore or taking helicopter flights – can damage an otherwise pristine environment. I’m not saying that Antarctica should be out of bounds altogether but I do think tourism there should be far more restricted than it is.

It’s a similar situation with tourism on the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador – where 19th British naturalist Charles Darwin developed his theory of evolution. The islands need tourism to survive but it’s decidedly a mixed blessing.

It’s the same in Peru, where the Incan ruins of Macchu Picchu are straining under the weight of too many tourists.

The latest ‘eco-tourism’ claim to get my goat is the fact that the state of New South Wales in Australia is considering weakening the legal protection for national parks to allow private-sector development within the park boundaries.

The proposed changes would facilitate the building of new ‘eco-resorts’, cabins and semi-permanent camps, and changes to wilderness laws that allow for commercial tours, according to the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

There’s no need for this since the national parks are already extremely popular with visitors – and anyway, their principal purpose is conservation rather than leisure and tourism.

National Park visitor growth will easily exceed the State Plan Target, outperforming all other sectors of the tourist industry. Domestic overnight visitors visiting national parks will increase by 100 per cent by 2016, and the State Plan target is for 20 per cent growth. So why push private development into national parks?

It is inappropriate to remove protection from national parks and to offer sites within them to the tourism industry, in an “Ëœinvestor-ready’ condition – these public lands are set aside for nature. And our wilderness areas have been protected from commercial use for over twenty years and there is no need to exploit these wild places for commercial gain. Link

The moral of the story is not to be fooled by greenwash – there are some fantastic green travel initiatives billed as eco-tourism and we should support them, but we should also ask the hard questions and use some common sense.

If you fancy getting involved on the national parks issue, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW does have instructions on whom to email to lobby against the law change.

Image: koala.like.rock

The post When Eco-Tourism Isn't appeared first on EcoSalon.

I don’t know if it’s irony or hypocrisy that best describes that fact that Prince Charles is heading to South America next month to focus on environmental sustainability and climate change issues but is getting there on a private jet, leaving a massive 322 ton carbon footprint. I’m going to go with hypocrisy. Perhaps the Prince should consider leaving some of his 14-person entourage behind and just hopping on an ordinary plane like the rest of us.

Apparently the Prince does plan on offsetting his carbon emissions. But still, it irks me that he doesn’t see that having his own jet to transport 14 people is ethically incompatible with his “green” stance.

It turns out that this isn’t the first time that Prince Charles has been in the firing line over his mode of transport when traveling in the name of environmental issues. In 2007, he flew first class to the United States…to pick up an environmental award. Well, I suppose video conferencing wasn’t available.

Of course, the Prince isn’t the only one that seems not to notice the hypocrisy of leaving such a massive carbon footprint with his travelling. Other well known people to be tagged for private jet flying include former Vice President Al Gore and California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger. What do you think about this, readers? Is the occasional “Oops, I pumped out more greenhouse gases than the cattle of Brazil last weekend!” something to be overlooked in the grander scheme of saving the planet…and avoiding the hoi polloi?

Image: versageek

The post Private Jets & Going Green: All in a Day's Work for Prince Charles appeared first on EcoSalon.

Dear readers: Sara and I stumbled across this and six days later we’re still not sure what to think of it. When you come across a green product as useless as this, it’s easy to be rendered speechless. Fortunately, at least for us, this doesn’t last long. Here, we share our thoughts. Please do share yours.

We present to you the Umbrella Pot by Kyouei Design. It claims to conserve water by reusing the rainwater cast off by your umbrella to nourish the plant growing in a small pot at its base.

Kim: I’ll say it until I’m green in the face. Useless objects manufactured using sustainable materials are still…useless. You can twist and turn it a million eco-friendly ways, but I’ll continue to ask the same question. Why use the resources, waste the energy, create the carbon emissions to create and sell an unnecessary, frivolous product?

Sara: I didn’t realize this was a problem that needed solving but it makes sense if you think about it. Now I’m wondering what else around my place needs help. What if I’m letting stray dust bunnies escape when they could be of service? I think I get them all but there is that space behind the fridge. Perhaps there’s a special implement to help capture these wayward fluffaluffs? Eco-friendly of course.

Kim: The Umbrella Pot is a “low-maintenance way to keep a small plant”, but only if rain is falling and your umbrella is wet. It won’t help you in the least when the weather is dry. Yes, it’s made of eco-friendly and non-toxic ceramic. Spectacular. It also costs almost $800, which is a lot of dollars spent to capture a few drops of water. Has anyone tried putting indoor plants outdoors during a rainstorm and letting them catch the rain all on their very own? Brilliant, no?

Sara: The only challenge I see with an umbrella stand like this is that unless you plan to sport an equally pricey umbrella, you’ll just feel lame. It’s like parking your Porsche on Van Ness and wondering why it keeps getting dinged. (This happens to me all the time. So annoying!) The contents have to fit the container. Which means a Chanel umbrella at least. What’s Gucci doing for spring showers?

Kim: Have we lost all sense in our attempt to go green? Has the ozone layer fried the sector of the brain in charge of discernment? Or maybe we’ve been waterlogged by acid rain?

Sara: You’re so in luck! Could I interest you in a very stylish eco-friendly pot to catch your acid rain?

Kim: Here’s a suggestion. If you can say kitchen pot, you can save rainwater”¦the old fashioned way. Put one of your pots outside with your umbrella draining in it. Already own an umbrella stand? Let your umbrella drain in it, then pick it up and pour the excess water into any of your plants.

Sara: Kim, as an employee we value your contributions. Your idea has been submitted to management and will be reviewed, possibly this year. In the meantime, we recommend purchasing an umbrella stand that is eco friendly, like the Umbrella Pot.

The verdict: Waterlogged. If your current umbrella stand still functions, use it. If your life lacks an umbrella stand, well, TRAGIC is not the first word that comes to mind.

The post Waterlogged: 2 Eco Chicks Check Out the “Eco” Umbrella Pot appeared first on EcoSalon.