Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Don't Buy Wal-Mart's Greenwashing

Posted by Tara Lohan at 2:18 PM on September 12, 2007.


Tara Lohan: The retail giant wants to get on the popular eco-bandwagon, but Wal-Mart Watch won't let 'em.
walmartstory

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Sensing the shift in eco-consciousness that has gone mainstream in the last year, Wal-Mart is working hard to re-brand itself as a "green" company.

But don't be fooled. It is going to take a lot more than changing their light-bulbs for anyone to take them seriously. The group Wal-Mart Watch has done some digging on Wal-Mart's enviro initiatives and found some interesting facts. Although the retail giant announced goals to cut CO2 by 2 million metric tons in six years, at their current growth rate, their new stores will use more energy than any of the energy saving measure they are going to employ.

Here's an overview from Wal-Mart Watch's report "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Truth About Wal-Mart's Environmental Makeover":

Its fleet of trucks, massive overseas shipping to import its goods, and the increasing vehicle miles traveled by its consumers all contribute heavily to CO 2 emissions and the number of ozone-causing particulates released into the air. Its huge stores and even larger parking lots contribute to the degradation of our water supply, affecting our drinking water and the viability of aquatic life. Its support of anti-environment candidates has helped forward the policies of the current Bush Administration, the same Administration rebuked by the Supreme Court and the former Vice President within the past few months for its handling of environmental policy.

Because the company is always expanding and adding newer, bigger stores, there are now about 300 vacant Wal-Marts at any given time across the US. The company is also facing fines and other penalties in dozens of states. The report states: "Lost in the sex discrimination and race discrimination class actions and the large number of wage and hour cases is the reality that Wal-Mart has been charged with a multitude of environmental violations over the course of the past ten years. Charges have come from both state and federal environmental officials costing Wal-Mart millions in penalties -- and costing the environment even more."

The report does give a small amount of credit to Wal-Mart's efforts thus far (like their controversial organics program), but ultimately concludes that what the company has done is really just glossing over more important environmental concerns and problems.

The reality is that big box retailing is never going to be sustainable.

What is especially worrisome, however, is that Wal-Mart's green initiatives have diverted attention away from its most damaging source for pollution -- American drivers. Big box retailing is a fundamentally unsustainable method of distributing goods to consumers, and as the big box retail sector has grown, so have the number of miles consumers are forced to travel while running errands. In 2005, Wal-Mart published a calculation of its own carbon footprint, revealing that its U.S. operations were responsible for 5.3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.

The basic environmental facts just scratch the surface in how Mal-Mart's business practices affect the health of communities. Read the full report and find out more. And as always, think before you shop.

Digg!

Tagged as: wal-mart, box stores, consumers, small businesses, carbon

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.


Broken Glass
This is no doubt one of the ugliest periods in American political history.
Post by DCap. October 11, 2008.
Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
"I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate ..."
Post by Emptywheel. October 10, 2008.
Stock Market Drops 107 Points During Bush's Speech on the Economy
That's the kind of confidence Bush inspires these days.
Post by Amanda Terkel. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great article!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 12, 2007 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing that they'd even try this tact - but everyone is doing it, from Arnold Schwarzenegger to ConocoPhilips to Chevron. For example, Conoco Phillips just pledged $10 million to 'offset' its Bay Area refinery expansion. The LATimes ran this with the headline "Oil Giant to Fight Greenhouse Gases", the SFChronicle followed with a similar
front-page article praising ConocoPhillips as a 'climate crusader'.

Now, this is a $600 million dollar expansion (now $610 million) which will result in an additional annual emissions increase of 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide at its Rodeo facility - and that's not counting all the additional gas that will be burned in people's cars, as energy consumption in California continues to rise. A more realistic headline would be "ConocoP pays $10 million bribe, greenwashes image, wins permit to expand refinery".

For more,
www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070822a.asp

Anyhow... just another example of the WalMart green makeover strategy. It's all right out of the Frank Luntz memo playbook: www.luntzspeak.com/whatspeak.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shut the F**ker Down!
Posted by: EJW on Sep 13, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I DON'T BUY ANYTHING AT WALMART
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 13, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVER !
Anna

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

green, the color of money
Posted by: MobileSucks on Sep 13, 2007 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
*Most* people that shop regularly at Sprawl-Mart could care less about environmental issues. They want cheap stuff. So Wal-Mart will not be defeated and will not change. If the world is ruined in the process, it aint their problem (so they feel). Their jobs suck and they don't have much money. To the extent they think about "the environment" at all, many lower income people hate environmentalists. That's terrible and a real shitty state of affairs, but true as hell. Well, how in the hell are you going to reach the masses?

And you know, it's real easy for a lot of you out there to look down of these people. A lot of you (like people I know) shop at other box stores and like to tell people how you never step foot in a Wal-Mart! Great for you. Target is soo much better! Your doing your part to save the planet. Well some of you should remember when people are working to support a family (or maybe just themselves) and are making less than $12 an hour, it's easier for you to pass judgement on them and go to your higher priced stores -that are also screwing the planet, but a bit more gently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real issue is a big problem...
Posted by: melissazumsteg on Sep 13, 2007 4:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must concur with the above statement. It always seems that we as Americans see the symptoms and not the causes, and the problem with Walmart is our economy of extremes...if you come from a poor, underprivileged family (like 80% of us,) you're less likely to be able to afford a liberal education that would expose you to ideas of personal responsibility in regards to environmentalism...and you're more likely to shop at Walmart because a lack of education/resources lands you the lowest paying jobs. Not to point out the obvious here, but the real problem lies with the distribution (and notion) of wealth in this great big system of ours and the fact that a lot of families are forced by circumstance to commit acts against the environment and humanity that they otherwise would probably choose not to...if they had a choice. The answer, in my humble and oft overstated opinion, lies in grassroots action to get people together and create a local system of support so that people can get what they need from each other and their own hard work...but that would also mean changing our ideas of material "success." The answer is not easy, and as some would say, hardly possible now that we've become so dependent on globalized material products. But the Anthropologist in me still has hope...however slim. Thank you for indulging my diatribe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Sep 17, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is evidence that Wal-Mart's "green image" is empy PR easily seen from US 75 in McKinney, TX. They put up a big windmill generator, but for some time it has been "turned off" with the blades feathered and the generator head turned 90 degrees from the tail vane, effectively preventing it from rotating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]