Last week, Wal-Mart joined leading energy executives in their startling call for mandatory caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. The heart of this monolithic retail Grinch grew three sizes that day -- or so it seemed to many environmental Who's.
Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott.
For many enviros, the name "Wal-Mart" has always triggered a shudder. The world's biggest retailer has been charged with exacerbating suburban sprawl, burning massive quantities of oil via its 10,000-mile supply chain, producing mountains of packaging waste, polluting waterways with runoff from its construction sites, and encouraging gratuitous consumption. (And those are just the environmental complaints.)
But it's precisely Wal-Mart's size and reach that could make it a powerful force for good for the planet, say market observers and a growing number of activists. The company controls so much of the retail market, and has such sway over manufacturers, that any green initiatives on its part have huge ripple effects. And it's certainly CEO H. Lee Scott's intention to make waves.
In October, Scott announced a preposterously ambitious goal to transform Wal-Mart into a company that runs on 100 percent renewable energy and produces zero waste. Since then, he has impressed greens with specific commitments to cut the corporation's greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent over the next seven years, double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet within 10 years, reduce solid waste from U.S. stores by 25 percent in the next three years, and double offerings of organic foods this spring, selling them at prices more affordable to the masses.
Enviros hope Wal-Mart will have the same game-changing effect on mainstreaming environmental strategies that it has had on reducing prices. "Wal-Mart's new commitments to increase efficiency and reduce pollution and waste are important first steps for a company that has such a profound impact on our environment," Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said in a public statement. "More companies should take these positive steps toward safer and healthier communities."
Amanda Griscom Little recently spoke with Scott about his vision for "democratizing sustainability" and listened to his pitch about how green strategies will help fatten Wal-Mart's bottom line.
Six months ago you outlined long-term goals to make Wal-Mart a company supplied by 100 percent renewable energy, creating zero waste, and selling products that sustain our resources and environment. Tell us what motivated you to set those goals.
I think two things happened. One, as we look at our responsibility as one of the world's largest companies, it just became obvious that sustainability was an issue that was going to be more important than it was, let's say, last year, and the years before. I had embraced this idea that the world's climate is changing and that man played a part in that, and that Wal-Mart can play a part in reducing man's impact. We recognized that Wal-Mart had such a footprint in this world, and that we had a corresponding part to play in sustainability.
On a personal level, as you become a grandparent -- I have a granddaughter -- you just also become more thoughtful about what will the world look like that she inherits. So I think it was a confluence of both the personal side and the business imperatives that at least drew me to be interested in it.
Were there bottom-line motives as well?
As I got exposed to the opportunities we had to reduce our impact, it became even more exciting than I had originally thought: It is clearly good for our business. We are taking costs out and finding we are doing things we just do not need to do, whether it be in packaging, or energy usage, or the kind of equipment we buy for refrigeration in our stores, that there are a number of decisions we can make that are great for sustainability and great for bottom-line profit.
Let's take one of these examples and drill deeper into the bottom-line opportunities. Do you have to make investments on the front end that are eventually recouped?
Well, let's start with packaging. It does not require a big investment to reduce the amount of packaging; what it does require is a different mind-set. We have reduced packaging on any number of private-label lines, which in turn has caused us to reduce the number of containers, the amount of energy that is used to create the packaging, and the amount of energy that was used to transport the larger package into our stores. Likewise, there has been a mind shift in the purchase of transportation equipment that may cost a bit more up front but pays energy-saving dividends in the long run.
And these savings, in turn, translate to lower costs for your customers?
Yes. Wal-Mart has always prided itself on being the low-cost supplier to our customers, working men and women. In some cases that carried over into decisions to buy equipment that cost less from a first-cost standpoint but not from a life-cycle standpoint -- energy use and total maintenance cost and so forth. So those really weren't good decisions whether you were focused on sustainability or not. They were wasteful to the company and they were wasteful to the environment.
What are the specific targets you've set for improving your environmental performance?
We will be investing approximately $500 million annually in technologies and innovation to do the following: Reducing greenhouse gases at our existing store base around the world by 20 percent over the next seven years. Designing and opening a viable store prototype that is 30 percent more efficient and will produce up to 30 percent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions within the next four years. Reducing solid waste from U.S. stores by 25 percent in the next three years. Increasing our truck fleet efficiency by 25 percent over the next three years, and doubling it within 10 years. If implemented across our entire fleet by 2015, this would amount to savings of more than $310 million a year.
Do you have a time frame for the 100 percent renewable energy target?
What I wanted to lay out were not just incremental goals but aspirational goals. The technology does not exist today to allow Wal-Mart or any company to achieve such goals in total. But we want people to understand that this is the direction this company is going.
Is the size of your company an advantage or disadvantage in this pursuit?
Because of our size, it enables us to help create markets for clean technologies that exist today, but don't yet have fully established markets. If Wal-Mart started using or selling those items all of a sudden, there would be enough scale that those would be viable alternatives. So I'm always asking, how do I work with people, whether it be Jeff Immelt at General Electric or John Browne at BP, to use our scale to help propel an industry so that the production of that tech[nology] or product is now affordable for other people? I ask, what happens to the solar-panel market if Wal-Mart makes a large commitment to solar panels? What happens to the cost of compact fluorescent light bulbs or green building materials? Wal-Mart is one of the largest construction companies in the US, so if we start using a specific building material, does it then become more affordable for everyone?
Not to mention organic products -- you are becoming one of the world's biggest distributors of organics, right?
Yes, we are doubling our selection of organic products. I think we have the ability to allow people who can't afford to pay more to participate in sustainability in a way that they can't actually afford to today. The bigger theme here is democratizing sustainability. In some ways the shift toward sustainable lifestyles has thus far been stratified based on income or education levels.
Wouldn't Wal-Mart's shift toward sustainability require a substantial rethinking of your supply chain, given that you have one of the most extensive supply chains in the world?
You know I think clearly there will be challenges there. But today I will tell you our focus is more on the size of the products for the moment, which has impacts on the energy intensity of our supply chain. So if you took a Unilever washing machine product and made it a third the size that it was before, you reduce the number of trips by a third. Or take concentrated laundry detergent -- you get more value in a smaller container. We call these VPIs -- volume-producing items. We give the producers of VPIs confidence that we will give these products priority on our shelves and help customers understand their value. So we're taking affirmative action to sell more sustainable products.
Wal-Mart caused many a jaw to drop last week when it joined energy leaders in a public request for climate-change regulations. What made you decide to take this stand?
Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed. I have been out making trips to learn about carbon sequestration, I have been in discussions about carbon trading and carbon caps, and I understand the importance of a properly structured market-based system. I have advisors on all these matters. But at this point I would tell you that I still have much more to learn than what I currently know.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail
Comments
View as Flat
eswanson Posted 2:30 am
13 Apr 2006
On March 30, Corp Watch wrote an article on how WalMart is recruiting "Public Relation Generals" in their fight against all the bad press they've received lately. I'm sure this latest "green campaign" is just one of many to make WalMart's image a bit shiner. Not that anyone with half a brain is fooled.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13430
Permalink
Tom Twigg Posted 6:30 am
13 Apr 2006
Continue to boycott Walmart if it makes you feel better (I know I will), but let's reserve judgement on Mr. Scott's green ambitions until we see if he really can make waves. Considering what is at stake, I for one hope he can do it.
Permalink
JPoyourow Posted 6:55 am
13 Apr 2006
I read about Wal-Mart's recent interest in carrying organic foods and more-sustainably-produced seafood. At first it sounded terrific - wow, so much more access to these products. And the thought of such massive supply lines - agriculture, manufacturing, etc. - converted to more sustainable production - wow again. But then I stopped to think about what has been the Wal-Mart M.O. since the beginning: ultra-low prices, at any cost. It's the "at any cost" part that they never say, and which hurts us all when they act upon it.
Wal-Mart comes into town and wipes out all the mom-and-pop businesses by undercutting prices. They are then the only remaining jobs in town, at next-to-nothing wages with no benefits. (refer to Ask Umbra ) Think about who produces, supplies and sells organics at this point. Local healthy-food stores, family farms, small businesses. These are therefore destined to be the next victims of the Wal-Mart megalith.
The fledgling suppliers do not yet have enough organics to supply Wal-Mart supply chains. A 4/9/06 Los Angeles Times article tells how organic product manufacturers are currently hard-pressed to find sufficient organic ingredients to continue to call the products organic. "The producers will just make more," you say. Sounds nice, but reality is, you can't do it tomorrow out of thin air. That same Los Angeles Times article reminds us that it takes about 3 years for a U.S. farm to certify as organic - the toxins have to transition out of the soils. A 4/3/06 article at the Christian Science Monitor says that fisheries have been sustainably certified at small volume, but the industry has not yet solved Wal-Mart caliber supply. We just don't have the supply yet.
"If Wal-Mart started using or selling those items all of a sudden," Lee Scott says. Wal-Mart will enter the organics markets with massive contracts, pull all the supply, and undercut the prices at any cost. The smaller producers and retailers of organic products will be unable to compete. Once again, the megalithic corporation will crush family businesses, entrepreneurs, local economies.
And a megalithic entry into such budding industries with limited supply sounds to me like a precursor to legislation degrading the definition of organic so that more products will qualify for the then-meaningless badge of "organic."
Yes, a Wal-Mart entry into the field may stimulate more growers to turn organic, but on the other hand, at Wal-Mart discounts, is that where we really want to head? Organics farmers and organics-producers reduced to sweatshop wages. "What happens to the solar-panel market if Wal-Mart makes a large commitment to solar panels?" Scott poses. Affordability, he claims, but how do they attain that affordability? At the rape of small businesses. That part Scott won't mention.
Rather than cheering the entry of the megalith into yet one more arena for takeover, someone should hand Lee Scott a copy of E.M. Schumacker's classic Small is Beautiful. If Scott wishes to make a better world for his granddaughter, he'll work to negate that unsaid phrase "at any cost." Rather than green-washing and public relations with continued annihilation, he'll truly nurture human capital, truly steward natural capital. I hope he does it, and doesn't just pretend he will.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 10:07 am
13 Apr 2006
The following question goes against my personal beliefsand actions, but in reality I think it is a very important question to ask and answer (and many are asking just the same):
Why specifically is it bad to have big chain stores instead of small mom-and-pop stores? Small stores are more likely to rip you off by not refunding your money if the product is defective or goes bad too quickly. Big stores are more competitive and can provide more for less and by inducing lower prices in the organic sector, they will actually benefit the customers, who will then pay less. This will happen due to economies of scale and more competitive producers.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:19 pm
13 Apr 2006
The way in which Walmart would introduce lower prices in the organic sector is not by using economies of scale, but rather by using its' size to make demands of producers. In other words, when such a large customer says it will only pay so much a pound, then that's what you get. Organic farming is generally more labor intensive than non-organic farming, and thus costs more. Pay organic farmers less means that they get less profit, and their workers get less. And may increase the temptation to cheat!
(One of the benefits of higher prices to organic farmers is it makes them WANT to be organic, and careful not to cheat because they don't want to lose that lovely extra income!)
The advantage of a Walmart is that it can control the market for a given product (if Walmart says 23 oz. bottles of pickles instead of 12 oz. bottles of pick;es, by damn, people will drop the 23 oz. bottles and use 12 oz. bottles.).
Before we get too excited by the idea of Walmart turning the world green, we should look at their labor policies which force their workers to get health care paid for by the state (since they can't afford anything else.). This is heardly the act of an "enlightened" corporation. There green activities are likely to be similar. Beware the hand behind the back!
Patrick
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:34 pm
13 Apr 2006
By the way, organic does not mean machine free, so that you could have less workers on the farm, so it is hypothetically possible to have a larger output without more labor.
Permalink
jwebb Posted 11:57 pm
13 Apr 2006
First they have to rezone the land to build. Usually the site is not the best location for the environment, but to see from the highway. These stores pop up next to residential and basically brings in more surrounding businesses outside of a community center.
Second, the sheer size of the footprint (same for Lowe's, H.D., Sam's Club). These are all single level layouts, minimum landscaping, and tons of parking that they won't share with other businesses. All of that impervious surface leads to increased runoff when they only have to design for maybe a 10 year storm, with more land set aside for drainage basins that promote mosquitos and invasive species.
Third, when they want to expand they just move a 1/2 mile down the road and build a bigger super center. Their land holdings on old building space is growing every year.
A bit off the subject is that 'Ol Sam's dream of everything being made in America has fell to the greed of his grandchildren. You speak about produce, but how much of what they sell does that account for? We should be more worried about the fact that WalMart is China's biggest exporter. Saving energy once merchandise arrives here is only half the battle, and I refuse to buy a DVD player that basically says we don't care if small farmers lose their land or have their health degraded for us.
~Jared
Permalink
trisha Posted 2:13 am
18 Apr 2006
how can you write a glowing article about one of the WORST environmental villains of our time? does the word "GREENWASH" mean anything to you? when you left the interview, did you notice that someone had taped a "kick me" sign to your back?
and what's with all the softball questions?
"what motivated you?"
"you're selling organics, right?"
targets? timing? rethinking?
thanks, katie couric. now back to the real news. blech! how do you EVEN call yourself a journalist, ms. griscom little?
wal-mart can make all the changes they have outlined without breaking a sweat and without altering their business model. (and apparently while getting RAVE reviews from short-sighted greenies like you.)
they will continue to build more stores on the outskirts of towns, leading to more development, more sprawl, more driving, more pollution, etc. this is their business model. they drain the life-blood out of small towns and kill small, independent businesses. this is their business model. and don't get me started on their labor practices. why didn't you ask mr. wal-mart about health care for his employees? it's non-existent. THAT is their business model.
grist - you have really let me down. unless you come up with a rebuttal and redeem yourselves, i don't want to read your little publication any more. do your freakin' homework!!! how about interviewing some of the people whose lives have been destroyed by wal-mart? how about doing the math on how much acreage they have wiped out all over the country? how about really looking at their supply chain? how about rampant consumerism for cheap crap made by child labor in third world countries?
how about acting like grist? a beacon in the smog, my arse. if i want glowing stories about how wonderful wal-mart is i'll watch Fox News.
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 2:57 am
18 Apr 2006
-------------------------
Dear Trisha,
My name is Chris and I'm the web production manager for Grist. While I'm not part of the editorial team, and thus not involved with the reporting and writing that appears on Grist, I wanted to mention that this is not the only Wal-Mart piece that Grist has published.
If you consult our archives, you'll see that there is a wide variety of coverage:
In particular:
The Norman Conquest
Al Norman, anti-Wal-Mart activist, answers Grist's questions
A Good Switch or a Bad Switch?
Wal-Mart's eco-announcements generate a clash among activists
Another Brick in the Wal-Mart
On Wal-Mart
The Revolution Will Not Be Discounted
New Wal-Mart documentary may be a sign of upheavals to come
I hope that this demonstrates that Grist has addressed the Wal-Mart issue from different angles.
Chris
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:55 am
18 Apr 2006
It is suggested that in a free economy producers will go to the highest bidders. Sounds good, but that is not how business works in practice.
If you make 100 widgets and someone will pay $20 a widget but they only want 10, while someone else says they will pay you $15, but they want 98, you sell to the person who wants 98 at $15 most of the time.
Because Walmart controls so much of the retail market, they are most producer's biggest customers, which allows them to dictate the price they pay for goods, as well as things such as package size and shape.
In truth the so-called free market is a monopoly market dominated by buyers for most producers. That is why farmers make such a low portion of our food dollars.
Maybe captive market is a better term than free market.
patrick
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:30 am
18 Apr 2006
I agree that the producers of food tend to be underpaid for their product. But:
" If you make 100 widgets and someone will pay $20 a widget but they only want 10, while someone else says they will pay you $15, but they want 98, you sell to the person who wants 98 at $15 most of the time."
is exactly what economies of scale are. By producing more product at a more efficient rate (supposedly), a producer (of anything) will make more money. If organic food is offered only at small co-ops, mostly unaccessible to the majority of the population, then the producers are forced to charge a high price for their product, because they are producing only a small amount and need some profit in order to make a living. If they are capable of producing more products at a more efficient rate (kind of a big if) then they will make more money by going to big stores (which many already are).
This is my only point with regard to this issue. However, it also becomes good for the consumer, such as myself and others who cannot afford to shop at expensive co-ops and health food stores (even though I do and wind up with $0 or negative in my bank account frequently).
However, there are several other points about big box stores, which were addressed by some of the responses: land footprint of these very large stores, strip development, need to drive long distances, etc.
Permalink
Hutania Posted 10:02 pm
18 Apr 2006
Mr. Scott says all the right things using all the nice buzzwords - sustainability, carbon sequestration - and throws out targets like a skeet sling. So far its mainly chocolate sprinkles on soft ice cream questions that lack any calorific value.
It seems like the latest incarnation of corporate glad-talking to keep the masses moving through the aisles without too many spills. Lets see if Mr. Scott lasts until his own target dates and see what else falls off the bandwagon.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:53 am
19 Apr 2006
There is a problem. Economies of scale are, for small producers, a myth.
A small organic farmer cannot just produce more. They are constrained by available land, the cost of building more greenhouses (if they use them) or other start up costs. Having a limit of 100 widgets, they need the best price they can get. But they also need to be able to sell all 100 widgets in a timely manner. So, Walmart buys the 98 for $15, and they have a lower profit, but survive. The lower profit, ironically, prohibits them from expanding (but the large sale keeps them in business).
Small producers frequently lack the ability to just "produce more". It sounds good in class, but in the real world there are many barriers. (Start up costs, risk factores, etc.).
The problem is that the market isn't "free". It is dominated by large scale middlemen such as Walmart, who determine the price. They often know the costs of the producers, and can cut them to the bone.
While this benefits consumers by offering them lower prices, it does not benefit small producers, because they have less money to invest in innovation (or things like solar power), nor does it benefit the workers for those small producers. Since they are at the bottom of the ladder, they feel the weight of the cuts.
Walmart can sell you cheap food, but ask the farm workers in the field how they are doing? Now well.
I want to make two points. One, a market wher e I tell you the price I will pay, and you have to accept it, is not a free market.
Two, a cheap and efficient market is not always a humane nor an environmentally sound market. It doesn't care about people, or nature.
patrick
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:46 am
20 Apr 2006
What is so great about small stores, small producers, etc.? From an economical and consumer standpoint, it's hard to see whether they are better. Plus farmers have to go to banks all the time anyway in order to take out loans for new equipment, land, etc. It's actually more feasible for a farmer to get this than it is for many other rural professions, since there are banks that specialize in farm loans. In our market-driven economy, competition seems to be king, plus it creates better products at more efficient rates.
From a labor/environmental standpoint I could see issues, but most consumers do not care about that.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:23 am
20 Apr 2006
What is so great about small stores, small producers, etc.?
Actually, the first "so great" thing is that most innovation comes from "small" beginnings. Organic farming, for instance, must start small, because big business won't be interested in it until it is successful.
My original comments were not aimed at arguing that small is better (sometimes it is), but rather at pointing out that there is no truly "free" market.
I believe that we Americans have some harmful myths, and one of them is the myth of the free market. This myth (in my mind) prevents us from seeing the world clearly, and helps prevent us from stopping glibal warming. It seems to me that as long as we wait for "the market" to solve problems, they won't get solved.
My particular argument here started in response to your statement that
"since in a free economy, those producers will go to the highest bidder, not the biggest bidder."
I was attempting to point out what I see as the flaws in the free economy myth. We seem to have side-tracked into a big vs small discussion (smile).
You then say..
"From an economical and consumer standpoint, it's hard to see whether they are better. Plus farmers have to go to banks all the time anyway in order to take out loans for new equipment, land, etc. It's actually more feasible for a farmer to get this than it is for many other rural professions, since there are banks that specialize in farm loans. In our market-driven economy, competition seems to be king, plus it creates better products at more efficient rates."
There are some problems. Farmers indeed have to go to the banks, which limits their options. It means that they MUST make back a certain amount of money, because the banks won't wait. So, when a Walmart offers to buy the whole thing at a cheap price (but only if they can get the whole thing), the farmer is forced to settle for less. Which is one of the reasons that small farms continue to disappear. Gettting loans is not such a simple thing, for anyone!
As to the statement that competition creates better products at more efficient prices, that is related to the free market myth.
True competittion might do so, but where does it exist?
Walmart is not engaged in competition, it practices predatory merchandizing. It uses it's size to destroy the competition (as does Starbucks or MacDonalds to name only a few). Walmart is able to offer lower prices not because it is so efficient, but because it can dictate terms to producers. And it can live on a very low profit margin in a new store while it drives the competition out of business, then it can raise prices. This is not due to efficiency or having better products, this is due to size.
A six ton elephant will always beat an ant. Giant companies use their size to dominate, not their efficiency.
Patrick
The idea (or myth) of competition suggests a level playing field where everybody has the same chance. It doesn't exist.
Permalink
screamingcapitalist Posted 2:23 am
24 Apr 2006
Of COURSE, whatever the CEO's personal feelings, Walmart is doing this "green" thing for the PR, maybe for the cost savings and possibly to pre-position itself to meet future regulations. It not about giving the planet a nice green hug, its about making sure its shareholders continue to make money.
...so what?
Quit whining about how little you predict Walmart will do and be amazed and thrilled that anything like this, at all, is happening!
Yes, the current organic industry cannot support the demands of a Walmart-sized company. So, it is not going to waste it's time trying to squeeze the margins of the "Happy Rainbow Apple Orchard" etc. It is going to go to its main-stream producers and simply demand they convert their operations to some minimally-compliant definition of organic.
Then there will be plenty more people to squawk about how truly "un-organic" Walmart's organic foods are actually. But "more or less organic" debates are a huge step forward! Get it???
Solar panels on the store roofs and windmills in the parking lots will be mostly for show. Who knows if the company will actually become a "green" company?
Who cares!?!
Can't you, instead of ladling on only derision and complaints, celebrate -skeptically of course- the fact that this one step by this one company may do more to raise the awareness of the serious environment issues than all the smug, cliquey and preachy "Earth-Day-LoveFests" combined?
This takes the issues, the concepts and maybe even some obvious, simple solutions out of hands of the narrow few and plops it right in the faces of "Jack and Jill Lunchbucket" who are climbing out of their 1989 Caravan to grab an exta large bag of Doritos before watching Everybody Loves Raymond?
Grasp the sudden credibility -and monster sale increase- Walmart's move gives the solar cell industry, even if it is just token on their part. Even as the Lunchbuckets are prompted to then grab a bag of organic apples to try for their kids, don't you think they might begin to think about what the other "non-organic apples" might have in them, how they are grown?
Is the first step in change helping people realize there is a problem? Or not?
Of course Walmart's strategy is mostly noise. The true, direct effects might be minimal. But it is a HUGE shift in attitude and it will encourage, almost force, other large companies to also take tiny, slow steps in that direction.
Its not going to fix all that's wrong with Walmart. And it's certainly not going to fix the core issues in people's psyche and in society in general that allows companies like Walmart, Macdonald's to flourish. But it ...helps.
So, what about, instead of sitting around bemoaning the loss of organic food exclusivity, why not gather your grassroots and encourage Walmart with enough positive public support -you don't need to go actually buy anything there- that it entices Macdonald's or GE or Exxon to take a little step in the same direction? That is how true societal change glacially happens.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:04 am
24 Apr 2006
It said something like: elephants are huge, but are afraid of mice, blah blah blah...
Competition does exist for Wal-Mart, see Target, all supermarkets, blah blah blah...
I am morally against Wal-Mart, but fail to see the reason, besides my pure intuition for this, yada yada yada... (switch it up a little)
I agree with the screaming capitalist. Instead of morally deriding Wal-Mart, we should give a little golf clap and resume our attentive posture. We should pay attention to how they continue putting and maybe even appreciate their under par score. We don't have to shop there, but appreciate the push that is occuring.
Permalink
coveark Posted 1:00 pm
18 May 2006
If Walmart or any business can help to bring affordable organic foods to the public in the quanities needed to make a realistic difference.........good.
The idea of small growers on their little farms making an organic revolution happen is idealistic.
The needs of the planet and the people should be addressed more aggressively ,before it is to late.
The time to stop the poisoning of our earth and water should be now. Run off of farms using chemicals without restraint is everywhere. Even stopping now it will probably be centuries before it could all be cleared.........
Permalink
jbell1972 Posted 12:15 am
26 Sep 2006
I distribute reusable grocery bags (http://www.cleangreenbags.com) for under $1 each. Reusable bags have been successfully used in most other parts of the world to reduce the number of plastic bags consumed every year. In some cases reducing usage rates by as much as 95% in 12 months. In the US alone we consume between 380 and 500 billion of these bags per year. It has been estimated that 53% of these bags are distributed by supermarkets. 5% of these are recycled the rest end up as waste.
Wal Mart could help save our environment by encouraging shoppers through discounts or free bags to rewards customers. This was my simple suggestion - but simply getting in touch with anyone that will listen has proven impossible. The only way this initiative will take off at Wal Mart is if their consumers start demanding action.
Permalink
bergeronjc Posted 4:47 am
15 Feb 2007
Permalink
Mia R Posted 3:49 am
21 Sep 2007
I wonder if the CEOs even know they contain mercury. The fact is that the one of the largest components of Zero Waste is product stewardship- Not only for potentially hazardous products, but all products. Wal-Mart needs to focus on that before starting any more green campaigns.
Permalink
yomamma Posted 8:01 am
20 Apr 2008
I will assume that none of you have ever worked there, so can we please stop with all the ignorant comments.
If they truly want to change the world, then who are we to critize?
Permalink