Yet another sign of unnecessary conspicuous consumption . . . and even if Treehugger condemns it (which it doesn't seem to), it is encouraging this device's purchase by bringing it the attention of the readers.

The article is sufficiently disdainful, I think. And for those people eager to protest stuff like this, how would they ever know, if treehugger didn't report on it?

The author notes that the guys [and gals] on Wall Street don't see anything coming. As technology develops, ambient devices such as this will become common place. Even clothes will contain radio frequency devices that will allow us to do things more efficiently and effectively. Assuredly, someone scoffed at the idea of a website devoted entirely to weather. Assuredly, someone scoffed at the idea of a TV channel dedicated entirely to weather. Assuredly, someone scoffed at the idea of a book devoted entirely to weather (read: farmer's almanac). Assuredly, someone scoffed at the idea of doing anything other than looking up to figure out what's going on with the weather. Assuredly, there will always be naysayers for things that will one day become commonly accepted.

Besides the umbrella itself, this product contains little more than a few LEDs, microchips and a wireless transceiver. Relatively speaking, buying a new calculator or throwing away a couple of AA batteries would likely have a greater environmental impact. Though I would never pay $125 for an item that I'll most likely lose, I'm really not seeing how this is "anti-tree hugger."

It looks to be made mostly of plastic, what exactly is about current economic and lifestyle trends that these people are not getting?
If this is Treehuggers way of endorsing, I don't want be on their bad side.
We will know about it, far to late, when we find the bits floating around the ocean or piling up for a few hundred years in a landfill, EVERY thing such as this needs to be addressed.

Morgan - While "doing with less" might help alleviate some environmental concerns, business as usual won't solve the problem. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the way we do technology. As suggested in the book "Cradle to Cradle" by McDonough & Braungart, keeping what we make separate from the natural world is imperative. They suggest the idea of a biosphere (the cycle of natural elements) and the technosphere (the cycle of human-made objects). As for this umbrella, not only must we consider its life, we must consider what happens after it is not longer needed. Surely, one can throw it away and it will likely end up in the Pacific trash vortex. But I would argue that systemic change needs to occur in the way we design objects. This, I feel, is the responsibility primarily of companies, not consumers. Though consumers "fund" companies, there are really few (if any) companies currently that consumers can support in this regard. We can't just simply avoid using technology to help the environment. If done correctly, we can have our cake and eat it too. I encourage you to check out the book.

Keifer, You've elegantly restated my position. Thanks, but since we agree I probably won't be reading the book.