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.

Environment

Has Wal-Mart Warmed to Eco-Responsibility?

By Reed McManus, Sierra Club. Posted February 1, 2008.


Wal-Mart hired former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach, but is the mega-retailer greening its business or just its image?
Advertisement

Former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach once referred to Wal-Mart as "a virus, infecting and destroying American culture." Now he's an environmental consultant to billionaire Sam Walton's steamroller of sprawl, and you're more likely to hear him spouting the motto "Take sustainability to scale."

So why did the guy who created the Club's nationwide Sierra Student Coalition go to work for a company whose annual revenues of more than $351 billion and some 3,500 U.S. stores make it the world's largest retailer? Werbach says that by going big he can "focus on helping the companies that have the largest consumer impact."

The environmental community's challenge, he says, is to make the realities of global warming "intensely personal and important to the millions of people who don't live in coastal cities and towns." For Werbach, ground zero in that effort is Wal-Mart.

But Wal-Mart was sprouting signs of green even before it hired the iconic tree hugger.

In late 2005, CEO Lee Scott announced the corporation's goal "to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste, and to sell products that sustain our resources and the environment." Since then, the company has made strides even a wary environmentalist would find encouraging, among them:

  • Thanks to research by energy guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Wal-Mart improved its fuel efficiency by 25 percent (eliminating 400,000 tons of CO2 pollution in one year), partly by installing generators in its fleet of trucks so that parked drivers don't need to run their engines just to get air-conditioning.
  • To advance its goal of reducing packaging by 5 percent by 2013, Wal-Mart announced in September 2007 that it would sell liquid laundry detergent only in concentrated form, a move that saves plastic, transportation costs, and shelf space.
  • Last October, the retail giant met its goal of selling 100 million energy-efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs within a year. The company used a tried-and-true strategy: Educate customers with a marketing blitz and large in-store displays -- and slash retail prices.
  • With the power of a good-size country, Wal-Mart has put the squeeze on its 60,000 suppliers to reduce their carbon footprint. Starting in 2008, the retailer will use data from suppliers to measure the impact of its entire supply chain. The incentive: Wal-Mart promises better placement in stores for products that have addressed sustainability issues.
  • Wal-Mart has pledged to sell only shrimp that comes from farms certified by a third party as nonpolluting. So far, its processing facilities have met the goal. Wal-Mart says all its shrimp farms will be certified within 18 months.
  • The company, which recently changed its slogan from "Always low prices" to "Save money. Live better," doesn't intend to lose any potential sales as it goes green. One electronics company, for example, was willing to package even its high-end accessories in inexpensive, highly recyclable cardboard instead of plastic "blister packs." Fearing a loss of sales if shoppers couldn't immediately see a difference between basic and premium products, Wal-Mart hammered out a compromise in which plastic packaging was reduced by two-thirds -- but not totally eliminated.

    Such big-business compromises may keep some green customers from racing to the nearest exurban mall. For its part, the Sierra Club sponsors Wal-Mart Watch, whose goal is "to challenge the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, to become a better employer, neighbor, and corporate citizen."

    Werbach doesn't want the Club to compromise on its key concerns -- among them Wal-Mart's contribution to sprawl and the effects its "supercenters" have on local communities. But he does hope enviros won't tune out the efforts of a company that operates in 13 countries and sees 127 million customers each week. "This is a huge opportunity to get something done for the planet," he says.

    Digg!

    See more stories tagged with: wal-mart, adam werbach, sierra club, green business

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


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:
Break Through
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 2, 2008 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference the book: "Break Through" by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, 2007.

I am on page 120. The message so far is: "Environmentalists have the wrong
message." Nordhaus and Shellenberger recommend changing from a message
about limits and separating people from nature to a message about growth of clean
energy and seeing people as part of nature. Clearly humans are part of nature.
We ARE chimpanzees. Human is a race of apes. It is just that our big brains
enable us to do a lot of things no other animal has ever done before, both good and
bad for earth life. We ARE clearly part of our Universe and we cannot be
separate from it. On the good side, we are the only organism capable of spreading
earth life to other planets and defending Mother Earth from giant asteroid impacts.
On the bad side, we are capable of causing our own extinction by means of global
warming. A total global warming of 11 degrees Fahrenheit will cause H2S to
bubble out of the oceans and kill everybody and almost all of the other life forms
that we care about. We have already caused one degree Fahrenheit of global
warming and natural positive feedbacks may kick in soon.

What Wal-Mart is doing is a minor fiddling with the limits. Wal-Mart is not in
the energy business. Wal-Mart is unlikely to do anything about the growth of
clean energy and seeing people as part of nature. Wal-Mart is soothing the
consciences of the ignorant and accomplishing nothing of importance.
Meanwhile, "Between 2007 and 2020, China will invest $128 billion in coal."
This is on page 117 of the referenced book. The US, China and India are building
coal fired power plants in lots of more than 800. What Wal-Mart is doing is
simply irrelevant. Of course Wal-Mart has NOT warmed to eco-responsibility.
There is something Wal-Mart CAN do as a retailer. Wal-Mart can sell books such
as "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas and the local language edition of
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby. Nuclear power is clean,
safe energy as coal will never be. Nuclear technology is something that the US
can sell and something that can be a growth industry. Nuclear power can save us
from extinction by global warming. What is needed is education on the subject of
nuclear power. People who understand nuclear power are in favor of it. It is
ignorance that makes people protest against nuclear power. Wal-Mart could also
donate money to schools earmarked for courses in nuclear power at the high school
level. "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby is a good textbook
for such a course.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have had a financial
interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in writing this is to avoid death by
H2S gas.

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

Wal-Mart's approach leads to collapse before extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 2, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan. Climate change has caused the collapse
of dozens of civilizations, and is well on the way to causing the collapse of our
civilization. See: "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared
Diamond. "Collapse" extends and amplifies what was said in "The Long
Summer." No government be able to prevent the collapse of world
civilization if global warming continues. In the US, the problem is that the
population has been thoroughly propagandized by the coal industry and is now
paranoid of all things nuclear. The building of coal fired power plants continues.

We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

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

Who says global warming will kill us?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 2, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India.

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

NO WALMART FOR ME - GREEN OR ANY OTHER COLOR
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 2, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they plant grass in the parking lot I still won't go near the place. They systematically mistreat their employees and the only reason they continue to prosper is because people are too lazy and indifferent to shop elsewhere until they clean up their act. Fact is, most of what is bought at Walmart is bought on impulse and not a necessity. Buy your food somewhere else and that's all you'll buy. Now that's saving money. Thanks, ANNA

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

Oxymoronic Idea
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Feb 2, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A business like Wal-Mart can NEVER be truly green. First and foremost, it depends on destroying open space to build new stores, then drawing customers that must DRIVE there. Additionally, any business that depends on products produced from far away instead of locally is causing major environmental destruction just by its existence due to the consumption and burning of fuel needed to ship the products to the stores, not to mention the almost constant spilling of that fuel that kills thousands of birds and marine mammals and destroys entire ecosystems.

Werbach is right that doing something good for the environment is better than doing nothing, but the only real solution to the environmental and ecological problems caused by businesses like Wal-Mart is to put them out of business. Start by buying locally produced goods, not ones made overseas just to get a cheap price. If you don't buy things you don't need, this will generally not be too hard to do.

But we also need to force our government away from this very destructive globalization and back toward local economies (there are some locally made necessities, like clothing, that are hard to find, and buying non-locally made goods should certainly not be encouraged by allowing them to be sold more cheaply than locally made ones). There should be very high tariffs on all imports, and exports should likewise be discouraged. Everyone should be buying goods produced locally, regardless of where they live. If it can't be produced locally, you don't need it.

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

» RE: Oxymoronic Idea Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Oxymoronic Idea Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Oxymoronic Idea Posted by: Salty_Dog
» RE: Oxymoronic Idea Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Oxymoronic Idea Posted by: wjfaust
» RE: Oxymoronic Idea Posted by: Jeff Hoffman