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
  • 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.

Can Wal-Mart Ever Be 'Green'?

By Stacy Mitchell, Grist.org. Posted April 2, 2007.


Wal-Mart's commitments to become more energy efficient are not without substance, but what can't be ignored is that big-box retailing is intrinsically unsustainable.

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

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Stacy Mitchell

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

This article is reprinted by permission from Grist. For more environmental news and humor sign up for Grist's free email service.

With its recent flurry of green initiatives, Wal-Mart has won the embrace of several prominent environmental groups. "If they do even half what they say they want to do, it will make a huge difference for the planet," said Ashok Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Environmental Defense, meanwhile, has deemed Wal-Mart's actions momentous enough to warrant opening an office near the retailer's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. "If [we] can nudge Wal-Mart in the right direction on the environment, we can have a huge impact," said the organization's executive vice president, David Yarnold.

Wal-Mart's eco-commitments are not without substance. The two most significant are a pledge to make its stores 20 percent more energy efficient by 2013, which will cut annual electricity use by 3.5 million megawatt-hours, and a plan to double the fuel economy of its trucks by 2015, which will save 60 million gallons of diesel fuel a year.

Acting with unusual transparency, Wal-Mart has even published a benchmark calculation of its carbon footprint. The company estimates that its U.S. operations were responsible for 15.3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2005. About three-quarters of this pollution came from the electricity generated to power its stores.

This cannot be dismissed as greenwashing. It's actually far more dangerous than that. Wal-Mart's initiatives have just enough meat to have distracted much of the environmental movement, along with most journalists and many ordinary people, from the fundamental fact that, as a system of distributing goods to people, big-box retailing is as intrinsically unsustainable as clear-cut logging is as a method of harvesting trees.

Here's the key issue. Wal-Mart's carbon estimate omits a massive source of CO2 that is inherent to its operations and amounts to more than all of its other greenhouse-gas emissions combined: the CO2 produced by customers driving to its stores.

The dramatic growth of big-box retailers, including Wal-Mart, Target, and Home Depot, over the last 15 years has been mirrored by an equally dramatic rise in how many miles we travel running errands. Between 1990 and 2001 (the most recent year for which the U.S. Department of Transportation has data), the number of miles that the average American household drove each year for shopping grew by more than 40 percent.

New Wal-Mart documentary may be a sign of upheavals to come It's not that we are going to the store more often, but rather that each trip is an average of about two miles longer. The general trend toward suburbanization is only partly to blame: shopping-related driving grew three times as fast as driving for all other purposes. The culprit is big-box retail. These companies have displaced tens of thousands of neighborhood and downtown businesses and consolidated the necessities of life into massive stores that aggregate car-borne shoppers from large areas.

During the 1990s, for example, about 5,000 independent hardware stores, dispersed across almost as many neighborhoods, were replaced by just 1,500 Home Depot and Lowe's superstores, most erected on the outer fringes of our cities. The same trend is under way in virtually every retail sector. According to the market research firm Retail Forward, every time Wal-Mart converts one of its stores into a Supercenter with groceries, it leads to the closure of two existing grocery stores, leaving many residents with farther to drive for milk and bread.

Altogether, by 2001, Americans logged over 330 billion miles going to and from the store, generating more than 140 million metric tons of CO2. If we conservatively estimate that shopping-related driving over the last five years grew at only half the rate of the 1990s, that means Americans are now driving more than 365 billion miles each year and producing 154 million metric tons of CO2 in the process.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: wal-mart, box stores, consumers, small businesses, carbon

Stacy Mitchell is a senior researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and author of Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
CAN WAL-MART EVER BE GREEN
Posted by: pfm on Apr 2, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all depends upon how one defines "green" - Wal-Mart is certainly "green" on its bottom line, which is how "we" define succe$$ in America. As for our environment, well according to our national leadership "global-warming" is not proven scientifically...?

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

how many times are we going to allow ourselves to be dooped?
Posted by: mr. green on Apr 2, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wal-mart claiming they are green is like Dubya dressing up in military costume prancing around on a big ship and claiming that his genocidal mission is accomplished. and even after all the evidence of deciet over and over and over again, from ever sector of this shadowy illuminati driving this up and coming appocolypse, we still struggle to see clearly the truth that is right in front of our eyes.

please, do not go to walmart. you think you cannot afford the local guy but i assure you, you are wrong. you have no idea how powerful the universe is when using elements of reality.

there is and abundance.

and please, do not pass this off as idealistic mumbo jumbo. any honest physisist, sociologist, or contemplative priest will tell you the same thing. there are certain laws that control everything and illusions do nothing but distract.

seek and ye shall find.

put your money where your mouth is and DO NOT spread hatred of any kind towards anyone or anything, even big box's like Wal-mart.

love is the ONLY thing that is going to get us to where we say we want to be.

think.

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

wolfinillinois
Posted by: lmwolf on Apr 2, 2007 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON !!!!! Don't be fooled, don't be distracted. Wallmart can never be truely green..ever.Can an elephant be a mouse? Even if it really tried, put on mouse ears, whiskers and small feet, it would still walk, trumpet, consume and sh.... like an elephant!! Wal Mart has already been caught falsley labeling/shelf tagging non-organic food as organic!! 'Green on Walmart' is like 'mission accomplished' on Iraq.

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

Can Wal-Mart Ever Be 'Green'?
Posted by: Ghoulman on Apr 3, 2007 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No.

Fuck off.

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

How Walmart could save the world
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Apr 3, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Walmart doesn't hate the environment, it just doesn't care. Walmart will do the right thing for the environment when doing the right thing increases profits. Corporations are amoral by definition.

One job of government is to enact laws that compell corporations to act responsibly. The easiest way to do that is to make "doing the right thing" the most profitable course for the corporation to follow. Here are a couple of changes that I think would push Walmart in the right direction.

1. A federal law that places a gradually increasing tax on the use of carbon fuels. The resulting revenue is redistributed equally to all Americans. Each person in America recieves an equal portion. Thus, if you use less than the average energy, you gain. If you use more than average, you pay. As the tax increases, the incentive to conserve grows.

2. A federal law allowing anyone to turn a portion of thier home into a neighborhood store. These neighborhood stores would NOT have parking facilities. This would put retail back into walking distance for much of suburbia.

Walmart and the other big boxes could then act as suppliers to these neighborhood stores, setting up delivery routes. The big box stores would remain as distribution points. As the article rightly points out, Walmart's vaunted efficiency stops at the front door. Big boxes would compete for the local business. Neighborhood stores would be free to supplement the big box products with local products and other products delivered by UPS.

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

Absurd
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 3, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absurd. Walmart will never been green no matter how much energy they conserve in their buildings. Everything is made at slave wages overseas involving chemicals, transported around the world (using jet fuel, truck fuel) and sold places where paradise was paved for a parking lot. Even if Walmart only sold organically produced clothing and food, it would never been green. All the stuff ends up broken in land-fill eventually.

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

NO
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 3, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The company business model, infrastructure and culture are completely unsustainable.

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

Wal-Mart and Life cycle analysis
Posted by: Progbiz on Apr 3, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notwithstanding my deep suspicions about Wal-Mart's efforts, these are pretty major steps forward.
The analysis provided by Mitchell is badly incomplete. what are the effects of box stores shopping trips, are they reduced becasue fewer trips are needed even if they are longer? What about the carbon impact of consolidated manufacturing, are they positivve or negative wrt carbon emissions. we progressives need to be exceptionally disciplined and rigorous in our analyses, Mitchell's presentation is neither.
Progbiz

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

» RE: Wal-Mart and Life cycle analysis Posted by: Stacy Mitchell
They may be able...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 3, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They may be able to "green" their stores... but they have deals with so many others that provide their cheap junk, and there is no way they will even be able to insist that the sweat shops they use halfway around the world be "green". This is just a false front to try to convince those interested in the "green" movement to buy more of their junk because they are supposedly green in some way.

www.greenanarchy.org

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

Agency packing
Posted by: eddie torres on Apr 3, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Presidents who pack the US Supreme Court with ideological matches for key supporters, US industries pressure their political representation to pack regulatory agencies and committees with insiders.

As long as Wal-Mart and others in the retail industry pack the agencies that define "green" retail and distribution standards with former managers and employees, then they can call themselves green every day of the week.

When the institutions that set the standards are no longer packed with industry insiders, the 'green' standard might become more demanding.

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

Consumerism =/= Green
Posted by: pdxstudent on Apr 3, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter if Wal-Mart becomes "green," if that means that we consume in the same manner, pace, and wantonness. The most sustainable policy Wal-Mart could enact is one of reduced sales.

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

not sure I agree with this.
Posted by: youngdem on Apr 3, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These statistics sound nice, but as always, correlation != causation. One of the things that "big box stores" do is actually limit driving. Walmart, Target, Kmart, etc. are ubiquitous enough that they're often much closer than shopping malls and department stores.

Suburban homes, and rural ones, are designed so that every single trip outside the home requires a car. The only places where that is not true are urban environments and small towns. Both of which are losing population. Ironically, the organic food and health food movements are probably creating more car trips, as people go to multiple grocery stores. My mom regularly goes to Sams Club, Trader Joes, Insert Generic Chain Grocery Store Name Here, and Whole foods. She's tried Walmart Superstore, but their produce isn't very good. I've tried shopping there myself, and I don't really see a savings, so I don't anymore.

Even when you can go to the grocery store without a car, people often don't. I'm within walking distance of my local chain grocery store, but I still drive because I don't want to carry gallons of milk and laundry detergent home. The nearest store that carries environmentally friendly products is 15 minutes away. But I drive there fairly often too.

Chain grocery stores and Walmart have done a pretty good job of either "invading" or "being convenient"; they try to get as close to their population base as possible. There is always a grocery store as close as zoning permits to housing developments. Frankly, the gas I use to get to the grocery store and walmart that were 10 minutes away (they were in the same parking lot) required me to fill up my honda civic about once a month or less, when I was literally only going there. The real problem is the transport of goods from many thousand miles away. Grocery stores in suburbia that don't require cars are a pipe dream unless you want to tear down houses to make space for smaller, more reachable, and no doubt more expensive locally owned stores.

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

» Not What You Buy, but How You Buy Posted by: pdxstudent
Ok people, let's see if you can answer yes to any of these questions?
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 3, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Is Walmart selling anything made of hemp?

2. Is Walmart providing huge discounts for solar panals?

3. Is Walmart lobbying as hard on Capital Hill to promote a better environment as they do fighting for the Paris Hilton tax cut?

4. Is Walmart standing up to the very same "free" trade shams that severly cripple the environment?

Unless yes were true on any of these questions, everyone should already know without reading this STALE article that Walmart is just playing GREENWASHING as usual. When will the Left learn to grow some bat and balls and fight back ?!?!?

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

Article's can't do attitude is pointless
Posted by: Digikata on Apr 4, 2007 11:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wal-Mart is famous for delivery of goods to customers in a way that is more efficient in cost than their competitors. All other things being equal - I'd suspect that fact alone already makes WM incur less evironmental impact than the equivalent economic activity through it's competitors. Though in todays world, cost does not equal sustainability, at least they're taking steps where it makes sense to intentionally align cost and sustainability right now - e.g. pressure on product packaging reduction from its suppliers. And, where WM leads, much of the industry follows so let's all cheer that steps towards sustainability are being taken right now in areas where it currently makes economic sense.

Let's all hope that WM will continue to explore, discover, and demonstrate that sustainability is fully compatible with economic growth - for in the long term that's what has to happen.

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

kenbaker
Posted by: kenbaker on Apr 5, 2007 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya know, when I see a piece like Stacy's it just flat exasperates me. It makes me sad to and a little freightened. Why? Because, as much as I too miss the old wooden floor, hardware stores, the town squares with mom and pop shops, the local lumber yard, the auto supply that still stocks a generator for a 52 Plymouth, as much as I miss Our Town America, I know that the truth is: The Big Box WalMarts and Home Depots are far more efficient, in every way, than the old paradigims. The amount of fuel used, the amount of polution caused, the amount of damage done per consumer in the old world Stacy pines for was far greater than today's slick (and ugly) box stores. If you are really interested in treating our precious planet with more kindness and with sustainable solutions, the last thing you want is the old way of doing business and living lives. Finger pointing and hateful diatribes against the Ugly Capitalists and their partners, the Conspicous Consumers may make you cool but it won't do a darned thing to help us get out of the deadly path the human race is speeding down. This is serious stuff, really serious stuff. Global Warming and a looming Energy Crisis are where this hell-bound train is headed. Let's get Real. Let's all work together to quickly find practical solutions. Please. KenB

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

» RE: kenbaker Posted by: Stacy Mitchell