A few years ago, I read an inspiring article on Treehugger that changed my whole attitude toward solar-powered homes. I had been thinking that solar was a multi-thousand dollar commitment that required complicated wiring and hard-to-understand deals with power companies. It turns out solar is (like marriage) something you can transition to slowly as your means permit.

The original Treehugger set-up (which is based on a post from Off-Grid.net) promises to keep the initial set-up at under $600 and indeed it does:

However, when I set out to purchase all of those items, I found the reality to look more like this:

Maybe the professionals have a line on super-cheap (and discontinued?) solar products, but it was clear that their recommended gear was not going to work for me at the price suggested. I’m the kind of guy who likes to let other people make my mistakes for me (which is why I love libraries) so I became nervous when the exact system they mentioned wasn’t available. I considered getting an all-in-one kit like those from Sunwize, but for $600 I would end up with a 5 watt panel and a 19 amp hour battery. If I wanted to get ripped off, I’d buy ridiculously expensive Chuck Taylor knock-offs.

Eventually, I had to bite the bullet and learn me about some solar. I bought a Kill-a-Watt monitor and went from plug to plug measuring my appliances. Then I did some reading about solar systems in general and what I could expect from the sun in my area (San Francisco). Finally, I did a lot of online research and came up with my own shopping list:

Close enough! There are some definite improvements to my own list, if I do say so myself. The obvious ones are the bigger inverter and charge controller—the latter especially important, as it will allow me to support up several more panels and batteries when I’m ready to grow. The battery is AGM (Absorption Glass Mat) which is safer and can take more punishment than the slightly old school gel batteries. Finally, the size of the panel doubled and is a size that’s not discontinued. The Uni-Solar panels from the original plan are definitely the way to go, as they’re light-weight, glass-free, shade-tolerant, graffiti-proof, and lots of other hyphenated descriptors.

Still on my list is a digital multimeter, because not knowing the precise number of volts here or amps there is going to drive a number-obsessed fellow like me crazy. Oh, and I need to talk to my landlord about all this… you don’t think he’ll mind, do you?

Update (1/20/10): It’s up-and-running!

The last few years, controversy has followed around Adam Werbach like a shadow. From his landmark “Is Environmentalism Dead?” speech to the work with Wal*Mart that’s left even his supporters scratching their heads, all along he’s promised that answers were coming. Answers have finally come… and in a form no less substantial than a total re-imagining of “sustainability” and a model for organizing how we tackle it as a planet.

Instead of spending the rest of this post explaining exactly what that is, here’s a full transcript of his speech and more about the platform from which he’s planning on doing his part. Yeah, it’s an advertising company—get over it. Now that we’re on the same page…

Though he namechecks Switzerland for the name Blue, it’s clear that this vision is the thoughtful and considered construct of one who has faced his demons—the IPCC reports things are worse than we’ve feared even as carbon emissions continue to rise, all the while Werbach’s been a leader in the Green movement—and emerged a wiser man. Environmentalism, despite all the dire warnings and alarm bells, has succeeded in little more than everyone feeling scared, guilty, or just angry. Now he’s ready to stop saying “the world is ending” and move from crisis to possibility.

In this way, he aligns himself with similar transformative thinkers—notably Van Jones (unfortunately, no relation). Though I haven’t heard yet if Jones endorses a “Blue” re-framing, he’s certainly been wary to define Green as limited to the organic foodfest or Prius-equals-redemption model popular among the gatekeepers of Green. His anxiety around the Eco-Apartheid that we seem determined to create and the consequences it would have on lasting sustainability are addressed by Blue in ways Green pays only lip service.

Also sharing this vision might be Alex Steffan of Worldchanging, who recently declared that “optimism is a political act.” Indeed, Blue is accepting and positive on a scale that makes even Bright Green (which “forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions”) seem a bit dim. Blue will likely mean saying yes enthusiastically to things to which we’ve been trained as activists to say no.

Werbach recalls:

I remember the conversation with Jan when she told me that her new PSP was a diet. “Really?” I asked, obviously disappointed that this born leader had chosen to go with something so…ordinary.

“What do you mean, ‘Really?’” she snapped back.

“Well, I just figured that sustainability—I said it slowly this time—has to have something to do with protecting the earth.”

Jan gave me a kind sigh. “Where do you think all that food is coming from?”

This letting go will be absolutely necessary to reach the most startling aspect of Adam’s plan. We have five years to grow Blue to one billion people (for reference, that’s about the size of the Internet). If we’re going to move at the speed necessary to address climate change, that’s the number of people we need to reach. That means we have to talk about things that address the concerns of more that just “Mac users… coastal states and college towns”. The impossible mass of the American Midwest, land of strip malls and big box stores, must in turn be joined by the waking giants of India and China and all feel as much a part of Blue as I now do.

I have to admit I think the name is unfortunate. Yes, it’s next on the spectrum but that wavelength is already well-tread by the U.S. Democratic party and yet another color name makes the “Blue is the New Green” jokes unavoidable.

One of the things I liked most about the Creative Review “green issue” was its admission that it couldn’t solve everything in one go (note my British turns of phrase), but that it was committed to getting its house in order and that the changes it made for its green issue—like the biodegradable polybag and recycled paper stock—weren’t just a gimmick but the first steps toward a sincere promise to address ecological concerns. To quote the article “CR and the environment” on page 36:

However, we know that this isn’t enough. There are a lot more aspects that we should consider including…

You can imagine my disappointment to get the new issue and see that the cover is back (no biodegradable polybag) and the indicia specifying the paper as Galerie One Silk, which doesn’t appear to be recycled, instead of the Cyclus Print (100% PCW) named in the last issue. It’s also a double issue, with “over 100 extra pages”.

Almost as disappointing is the “green issue” from one. a magazine produced by New York’s One Club, a non-profit dedicated to “the recognition and promotion of excellence in advertising”. They must have a different definition of “excellence” than I, as their awardees for their green issue include GE’s clean coal greenwashing, Diesel’s “global warming ready” clothing line, and BP’s Helios campaign which features a LEED-certified gas station as it’s centerpiece (or “branding beacon” as the Senior VP of Global Brand Marketing and Innovation calls it). Yes, a LEED-certified fucking gas station. Even BP’s ad agency Ogilvy & Mather admit the idea was:

Let’s take an existing gas station site and re-wrap it in an eco-friendly way.

Maybe just bulldoze it next time? I mean, it’s like they do this just to see if anyone notices how screwed up it is. They were probably giggling the whole time.

Speaking of “beacons”, the only light at the end of the tunnel was an article in the Creative Review by Tom Wnek about how the ad industry is (partially) to blame for everything from global warming to obesity called, “How Did We Get To Be The Bad Guys?” It offers a pretty good analysis of how “selling the sizzle, not the steak” has gotten us into some hot water. The next issue promises a part two on how to get out of this mess… Promises, promises.

In my days before being the web designer for RAN, I did a fair bit of print work and developed an interest in ways to minimize the ecological impact of what—at the end of the day—is still turning trees into disposable content. It’s when I first learned of the FSC and kenaf. I truly believe that we need a take-your-values-to-work day as our 9-to-5 efforts often have just as big an impact on our environment as the lightbulbs we use or car we drive. I’ve been paying attention recently to the role designers play in creating both desire (and thus consumption!) and solutions.

For this reason, I was delighted to pick up the “Green Issue” of Creative Review magazine. According to the cover, it’s technically called the “It’s About Time We Did Something About Sustainability and the Environment” issue. That same cover also has the table of contents, just to save some pages. Getting magazine designers to think about sustainability leads to some very interesting innovations. A special section breaks down how much ink, paper, metal plates, and chemicals went into the issue’s making and how they’ve sized the magazine to waste less paper (it’s square), are switching to a new paper, recycle their plates and unsold copies, and are examining their entire supply chain for ways to improve.

Other articles include: Creative Activism, talking to your clients about sustainability, how to design for low impact, the greening of Apple, inside the greenwashing industry, and taking your studio carbon-neutral. All the bases are covered. Finally, they fully acknowledge the “Green Issue” trend and the dangers of mere lip service instead pledging that the changes they made for this issue will be permanent from now on and advertising their downloadable version E-CR which, obviously, saves a lot of ink and paper.

In stark contrast, I picked up the latest copy of Common Ground at my local coffee shop, taking note of interviews with both Bill McKibben and Van Jones (who makes me proud to be a Jones). The articles were great as expected but I was horrified to find three more copies sitting on my front steps when I got back to my apartment. One for me, one for my roommate, one for my upstairs neighbors. I looked around and noted that yes, everyone on my block had received a free copy of the “Earth Day” issue. I’m already a member of GreenDimes to avoid just this situation and the added preposterousness of it being the “Green Issue” was honestly insulting.

I tried to find an explanation inside of how Common Ground, with a print run of 50,000, was monitoring and improving its practices. All I could find was a recycled logo, with no indication of the degree (100% post-consumer, I’m hoping). For a San Francisco magazine full of ads for organic milk and yoga retreats, it gets its ass handed to it by a bunch of UK designers in terms of walking the walk. Here’s hoping they step it up and outdo them next round, as I do genuinely appreciate the content.

Okay, I admit that I haven’t read every single Green Issue that’s out there, but these are my picks. Feel free to nominate your own best and worst Green Issues in the comments.