Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Acres for Wal-Mart

By Stacy Mitchell, AlterNet. Posted April 21, 2005.


Known for squeezing every last dime out of employees and suppliers, Wal-Mart has even managed to get a rock-bottom deal on corporate green-washing.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

My local newspaper, the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, reported last week, in glowing front-page coverage, that an effort to protect a tract of northern forestland from development had "taken a huge step forward" thanks to Wal-Mart.

Similar stories of treasured lands gaining protection with help from Wal-Mart ran in hundreds of newspapers across the country under such headlines as, "Wal-Mart grant will help fund Squaw Creek conservation plan," and "Wal-Mart to aid in effort to protect Grand Canyon."

Known for squeezing every last dime out of employees and suppliers, Wal-Mart has even managed to get a rock-bottom deal on corporate green-washing. For just $35 million--less than one percent of last year's profits--the world's largest corporation has burnished its environmental image and garnered a cascade of laudatory press coverage.

Under the deal, dubbed "Acres for America," Wal-Mart will donate this money--doled out over the next 10 years--to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, an outfit created by Congress that counts among its "partners" ExxonMobil and Alcoa. NFWF will use the funds to purchase land or secure conservation easements on wildlife habitat across the country.

"Acres for America will permanently conserve at least one acre of priority wildlife habitat for every developed acre of Wal-Mart's current footprint, as well as the company's future development over the next 10 years," NFWF's press release said.

One acre conserved for every acre developed. That's a clever construction, designed to leave the impression that Wal-Mart's donation fully mitigates its environmental impact.

The press release goes on: "This puts the minimum total acres to be protected at 138,000." If it's one-for-one, then this is also how many acres Wal-Mart intends to occupy by 2015. That's an astounding figure. Currently Wal-Mart's 3,600 U.S. stores and 100 distribution centers, including their parking lots, occupy roughly 75,000 acres. Apparently the company intends to almost double its footprint over the next 10 years.

In Maine, even as Wal-Mart secures easements on northern forest land, it's also cutting down forest and filling wetlands elsewhere in the state. In the town of Scarborough, Wal-Mart plans to abandon one store--leaving a carcass the size of two football fields surrounded by acres of asphalt--and clear-cut a wooded site across the street to build an even bigger supercenter. The "old" Wal-Mart opened in 1993.

"Protecting our environment is simply the right thing to do," Wal-Mart vice president Mike Duke said in announcing the Acres for America deal.

This from a company that spent the last few years trying to pave the Penjajawoc Marsh in Bangor. Identified by state officials as "the single most significant emergent marsh for waterbirds in Maine," the Penjajawoc is home to numerous rare and endangered birds. Wal-Mart fought hard to develop the marsh, but was ultimately blocked by a tenacious citizens group that persuaded the state to intervene.

But even more than the individual examples, it is the totality of Wal-Mart's impact on our environment that must be weighed against its $35 million donation. No other company has done more to make running our daily errands an ecologically hazardous activity.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Stacy Mitchell is a senior researcher with the New Rules Project, a program of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. She is the author of "The Hometown Advantage: How to Defend Your Main Street Against Chain Stores and Why It Matters.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
ain't it the truth ...
Posted by: Cybernalt on Apr 21, 2005 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it was Dusty Springfield who sang:

"What the world needs now, is a shopping mall"

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

Empty boxes
Posted by: knitter on Apr 21, 2005 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When our local Walmart is abandoned in favor of the Super Walmart a few miles away, there will be yet another empty box sitting in the valley (along with the shell of the old Kmart). If a new owner/tennant cannot be found for the building, in the spirit of being ecologically friendly, Walmart should consider demolishing the building and replanting the wooded hillside. Breaking up the parking lot so that water can seep into the ground instead of disrupting the watershed would also be a true green move.

Highly visible acts of generosity toward saving national treasures is grandstanding. It is the cost of trying to buy goodwill. Taking care of the local communities where people live, work, play and shop; that is the cost of doing good business and earning goodwill honestly.

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

» RE: mpty boxes Posted by: nakis
» RE: mpty boxes Posted by: knitter
A diversion
Posted by: lamar on Apr 21, 2005 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Walmart is bad for America because of what it does to our communities, not because of what they do to the environment. Maybe they are bad for the environment, but that's not the big beef with Walmart. It is a diversionary tactic.
Person A: I hear that Wally's Hardware store closed down last week, Wally's getting a job at Walmart for 1/2 of what he used to make;
Person B: Sux to be Wally! Hey, Walmart is saving the forests! Wally didn't save no forests!!

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

We Need a Plan
Posted by: Anita on Apr 21, 2005 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can we inform the general public about the negative impact of Wal-mart, both on communities and on the environment? How can we approach them so that they see reality as more than just dollars and cents? What will it take to convince people to avoid Wal-Mart? I'm open to suggestions.

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

» Barbara Posted by: Barbara
» RE: Barbara Posted by: nakis
» RE: We Need a Plan Posted by: lizzentome
Being free with other people's money
Posted by: knitter on Apr 21, 2005 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you realize that when Walmart pays substandard wages which employees supplement with welfare payments that even those of us who do not shop at Walmart are subsidizing their business? That frees up money that the company can give corporate gifts to buy goodwill and a reputation for being generous such as these environmental grants.

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

Just More PR
Posted by: nakis on Apr 21, 2005 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a manuever by the corporate elite and rich to make themselves appear as something they're not. Profits have taken a dive in the last couple of years. Growth has slowed. They have to do something to change that. Drop a few dollars on a good guy image. Pay for some advertising. Slap some make-up over the blood stains on their face and brush the flesh from fangs and wallah! . A kindler, gentler monster that still eats up the people.

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

sprawl deterence
Posted by: knitter on Apr 21, 2005 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, I liked the woods much better and found everything I needed at ample stores already. There was a Sam's store (a division of Walmart) that "needed" to take over the soccer fields, only to be abandoned after several years for a bigger, newer store a mile away. I think the cost of building and abandoning needs to include costly restoration in order to deter such environmental devestation.

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

I OWN ONE THOSE OLD DOWNTOWN BUILDING'S
Posted by: WONDERWALEYE on Apr 21, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a had time keeping it rented and now the rental is rented with another type of business. One of the biggest problems with the old buildings is that there is not enough parking!!!! I can't for the life of me understand how the stores made it in the past except to say folks had no choice!!!! I see folks driving all around the Walmart parking lot just looking for the closest parking spot to the store. When they can't find one they then go to a spot that's open, but there is always plenty of room. Old folks never had or where given that choice. What about all those new sub-divisons that sprawl over rich farm land and cleared forrest lands? Are we going to stop them? Why do you pick on Walmart when they have made it more convenent for you? These old Walmart buildings are owned by other's. I"ve seen those stores converted and even subdivided into a group of stores and guess what?? There is plenty of parking space to keep them rented!!!! I can only wish I had some of there old building"s!!! This issue is all about MONEY!!! Don't kid yourself. The HAVE'S are now becoming the HAVE NOT'S!!!!
It's time for them to get busy!!! and not just sit and cry about the good ole days. The BIBLE SAYS: THINGS ARE BETTER TODAY THAN IT WAS IN THE PAST. I guess the reason it says that is because HE BUILT human's to strive to make thing's better. WHAT A BOOK FOR WISDOM!!!! MAY THE LOVE OF JESUS BE WITH YOU!!! [this has two meanings]

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

just a matter of time
Posted by: pzzp on Apr 21, 2005 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil production is peaking, and prices will continue to rise. Walmart and most big boxes will gradually become obsolete, as the price of gas will eventually make it unafforadble for shoppers to drive the distances required. Furthermore, given the poor Walmart wages, staff will vanish as the cost of getting to work exceeds the hourly wage.

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

» RE: just a matter of time Posted by: nakis
Recommended Reading
Posted by: Yemoss on Apr 21, 2005 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the book "A Field Guide to Sprawl," by Dolores Hayden, Jim Wark (Photographer).

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

Bob Reichenbach, Philadelphia
Posted by: Grampop on Apr 21, 2005 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem is not Walmart. The problem, as I see it, is with large corporations. There is basically nothing wrong with corporations; we need them. But the balance between corporate rights and human rights is askew. A corporation doesn't need a clean environment but humans do. All corporations should be required to have ombudsmen for human rights on their board of directors.

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

LETS GET TO THE TRUTH!!!! GREED, GREED, GREED??????
Posted by: WONDERWALEYE on Apr 21, 2005 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you search "CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY" you will find that SOURCE WATCH is a project of the "CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY."

In a report filed by SOURCE WATCH of a newspaper write up in Michigan, it"s titled "UNIONS UNITE TO FIGHT WALMART"
It states that the TEAMSTERS, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL AND HOTEL AND RESTURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL have joined forces against the GIANT RETAILER[WAL-MART] on LABOR practises and IMPACT to communities. [I wonder if this post is part of their actions?]

Could it be that the real concern about the old buildings where just a ploy to get at WAL-MART??

SOURCE WATCH also has reported in their report titled: "WAL-MART PR SPRAUL" that:
1. 62% respondants said they would welcome the retailer.
2. 69% said WAL-MART stores create jobs.
3. 75% said WAL-MART'S stated wage of $10.38 an hour in metro areas is fair & decent.

Could it be that we have hidden or clocked forces at work???

THE BIBLE IS JUST FULL OF TRUTH'S!!!

SO LETS GET TO THE TRUTH!!!

MAY THE LOVE OF JESUS BE WITH YOU!!![this has two meanings]

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

Glad to see I'm not the only one...
Posted by: heftysmurf on Apr 21, 2005 6:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I heard about this plan in the Australian media the first thing that struck me was the sheer audacity of this corporate smokescreen - how is promising to save an acre of land (that shouldn't be destroyed anyway!) for every acre of land already poorly used by Wal Mart worth anything? How would a judge react if a serial killer promised to pay to prevent the murders of people equal to the number he/she had already killed? What about Exxon promising not to pollute tracts of land equal to those it destroyed in the Valdez spill?

Good article, and certainly gave me a lot more background information on an issue I had only seen in the mainstream. Typical Alternet =)

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

An old saying
Posted by: thereader on Apr 21, 2005 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The old saying is "If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem." The answer to Wal-Mart? Don't shop there. Seems simple enough--and it is. I swore off Wal-Mart over a year ago and I don't lack for anything that I need. The biggest problem is that they sell a lot of things so damn cheap. It's hard to resist. Also, with real wages generally falling, it's a hard sell to tell people to go somewhere else and pay a little more. For those watching their budget closely, you can't beat that place. I've made up my mind not to be a part of their success. However, like someone else here mentioned, you're still supporting them because a lot of their employees qualify for assistance from tax-supported entities. The conscientious person who wants to see people getting a living wage (and benefits) is going to spend a little more to buy from a retailer that treats its employees fairly. This is just like watching television. If you don't like what's on, don't bitch about it, change the station or shut if off. The only way to speak to corporations whose only motivation is to make more and more money (regardless of their do-gooder nonsense about preserving virgin acreage) is to hit them where it hurts--the cash register.

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

Purpleocean.org - heard about it?
Posted by: Malgoska on Apr 21, 2005 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you feel like your neighborhood Walmart is a thorn in your side (it is, believe me), fight it by spreading the truth about Walmart. Please visit Purple Ocean and join us. Together we will succeed.

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

Union For Wal Mart Employees
Posted by: mebadgett on Apr 21, 2005 11:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is past time for the employees of Wal Mart to be represented by a union.

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

Wal-Mart sells poverty
Posted by: danopacki on Apr 22, 2005 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to a Wal-Mart and look at the store, the way it's set up, the stuff in the aisles. You can barely squeeze a couple of carts by without having to stop and let someone go through first. Wal-Mart does this to slow down the pace of movement of people by forcing them to go up another aisle past more junk, or stop to see the junk on the endcaps or islands. Most of the people who shop there are working class and lower middle-class, I assume. These are people who are the ones struggling in this economy, derailed in a big way by outsourcing labor to produce the junk Wal-Mart sells to it's customers who are stuck in the downward spiral of low wages, no healthcare, hihger taxes, less education and unemployment. Wal-Mart sucks rescources from communities, forces small businesses to fold, demands tax breaks and incentives to build, often on environmentally sensitive lands. Wal-Mart is a slave master. Wal-Mart is evil.

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

Blasting Every Step
Posted by: petusthefetus on Apr 22, 2005 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, excellent investigative reporting here, Stacy. the Megoliaths of American disposability deserve a measured but fierce young David to sling some dirt- but that's just the thing... This issue hinges on saving green spaces, and in a somewhat ridiculous way. It seems that the PR Conservationism and press release friendly, snake-charming activism that Walmart is participating in, here, fits so perfectly with their "put out enough fires to let the cash registers burn bright for another few years" ethos. They're doing it to save face, while covering up the more important issue of poor planning and destructive, wasteful development. What do we do? First, I say PRAISE WALMART for committing cash to save some greenspace. It's a step in the right direction, that should be parroted by other businesses- big box and small box alike. Second- PUBLICIZE THE COMMERCIAL OVER-DEVELOPMENT CRISIS- and hold these fuckers accountable for their actions. How? Lets pipe bomb/burn/bulldoze and reclaim some of those empty carcasses of retail- make nice green pockmarks out of the capitalists brothels that once were. man the guns, fair citizens...

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

How Funny
Posted by: amu on Apr 22, 2005 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You all are hilarious. Ok-so Wal Mart hurts the environment, hurts small business, forces people to shop there, forces people to work there for starvtion wages and oh yeah, you all forget that they exploit workers in 3rd world countries. All that and somehow they manage to make money at the same time. That is an accomplishment.
Listen. People shop at Wal Mart because in a competitive environment, people have choices and they choose low prices and convienience. Wal Mart is good at giving people what they want.
Also in a competitive environment, people want bigger, better and newer-that is why Wal Mart and other companies move into new locations. Retailers that are stagnant in terms of merchandise, convienience and nice, new locations lose out.
Next. I am guessing that many of you bloggers haven't had too many union gigs. In spite of the rhetoric, its fairly easy to organize. When I was younger, you got the worker to sign a 3x5 card. It didn't obligate anyone to anything but indicate an interest in having a Federally sponsored election. You get a certain % of the workers to sign and you have the election. There is little a company can do to stop this process.
And unions aren't the answer in all situations. in the 70's I worked for a larger hardware chain and as it was a union shop so I had to join. It was the old retail clerks union. I had to pay a $25 "initiation" and $20 a month in dues for a job that started at minimum wage and had no benefits. I could have made more money without the union. People have choices. I left that job for a better one. If Wal Mart folks didn't like their job, they could leave or organize. Some leave and they never organize. Its a nightmare for the AFL-CIO.
And people are economic creatures-they act in their own selfish best interests. People in 3rd world countries who are making $50 a month working for a Wal-Mart supplier aren't doing it for fun or because they love Wal Mart or us Americans. They do it because its better than anything else they can do. Regardless of where you are, having a good education and marketable skills will do you well. Not having either means that your life will be a poor one because of the choices you made.
I think I've pissed you all off, but lets see if you can do a better job of explaning how our world works and how to do as well as you can in it.

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

» RE: How Funny Posted by: catz11
» RE: How Funny Posted by: amu
» RE: How Funny Posted by: Jordon
» RE: How Funny Posted by: shopper
Educator, Farmer
Posted by: jfkkona on May 9, 2005 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I go in the local WalMart maybe once or twice a year-- they do have my bank's ATM. I bought something there a few years back, but I can't remember what it was, because nothing about WalMart is memorable.
I'm hoping that more and more of my fellow Americans will make similar choices. We'll get to the point where "institutions" like WalMart simply become irrelevant. If we continue to support this nonsense, it will continue to grow. We vote EVERY time we spend money, and, unlike our "election" vote, the $$$ vote counts. Spend your vote wisely. JFK

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

To those towns not yet affected
Posted by: Jeweleress on Jul 11, 2005 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe we could slow them way down if all the towns not yet affected were to add a new ordinance while they still can. Add that any business who employs more than 50 people and is building their own building must remove the site, all the way to the soil if it cannot be sold in two years of it's closing. Make sure the wording is very detailed in that they are responsible for ALL fees, fines and charges incurred in removing their (waste) site. This is a way of affecting only them while not descriminating.

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