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 [Excel]. 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.
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.
Since Wal-Mart accounts for 10 percent of U.S. retail sales, the company's share of these emissions is at least 15.4 million metric tons -- and likely higher, because Wal-Mart has led the way in auto-oriented store formats and locations. This amounts to more than all of its other domestic CO2 output combined.
Land-use consultant Kennedy Smith notes that another way to estimate these emissions is to start with the 100 million shoppers Wal-Mart says its stores attract each week, generously assume two shoppers per car, and then multiply by the average length of a shopping trip. This produces an almost identical result: over 15 million metric tons of CO2.
Shopping-related driving has been growing so fast that even a phenomenal improvement in the fuel economy of cars would soon be eclipsed by more miles on the road. Nor is CO2 the only environmental impact of all of this driving. Tens of thousands of acres of habitat have been paved for big-box parking lots, which, during rainstorms, deliver large doses of oil and other petrochemicals deposited by cars to nearby lakes and streams.
By embracing Wal-Mart, groups like NRDC and Environmental Defense are not only absolving the company of the consequences of its business model, but implying that this method of retailing goods can, with adjustments, be made sustainable.
Worst of all, they are helping Wal-Mart expand. In the Northeast and West Coast, where Supercenters are relatively few and environmental sentiment runs strong, a greener image is just what Wal-Mart needs to overcome widespread public opposition to new stores.
In January alone, Wal-Mart opened 70 U.S. stores. At current growth rates, by 2015 Wal-Mart will have enlarged its domestic footprint by 20,000 acres, turning CO2-absorbing fields and forests into stores and parking lots. Big-box stores make incredibly inefficient use of land. While 200,000 square feet of retail spread over several two-story downtown buildings with shared parking takes up about four acres, a single-story Superstore of this size, with its standard 1,000 parking spaces, consumes nearly 20 acres.
Wal-Mart's new stores will use more electricity than its energy-efficiency measures will save. By making its existing outlets 20 percent more efficient, Wal-Mart says it will cut CO2 emissions by 2.5 million metric tons by 2013. But new stores built this year alone will consume enough electricity to add about 1 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
It is not as though we need these stores. Between 1990 and 2005, the amount of store space per capita in this country doubled, while consumer spending grew at less than half that rate. The predictable result is that the U.S. is now home to thousands of dead malls and vacant-strip shopping centers. City planners are not the only ones alarmed. "The most over-retailed country in the world hardly needs more shopping outlets of any kind," advised PricewaterhouseCoopers in a report to real-estate investors.
Yet Wal-Mart continues to build -- consuming land, inducing more driving, and, perhaps most perilous of all, destroying what remains of small-scale, locally owned businesses. Tucked close to their customers in neighborhoods and downtowns, and sized to fit sidewalks rather than regional highway systems, it is these stores that are the true building blocks of a sustainable way of distributing goods. It is they, not Wal-Mart, that deserve the admiration and support of the environmental movement.
Umbra’s top ten Climate Week moments
Umbra’s top ten Climate Week moments
Comments
View as Threaded
Spaceman Posted 3:21 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
DeCapeJack Posted 4:48 am
28 Mar 2007
As Wal-Mart is a behemoth for which there are no effective sticks, there can only be carrots to have any chance of being effective. Presumably the only solution that would be acceptable to you would be if Wal-Mart ceased operations, which will never happen. So, lets put our efforts into something that can yield results.
Wal-Mart has the largest amount of buying power in the universe. If they used that to urge their suppliers to green up, it would make a huge difference. Using smaller boxes for products like cereal and soap would be felt along the whole supply chain through less paper used to make the boxes, more product shipped per semi, etc. This they could do and effect beyond their reach.
So, you can either whiz in the wind, or make a real difference. I say, work to get them to use their force for good.
Permalink
DiggerDave Posted 8:27 am
28 Mar 2007
DecapeJack's whine (previous comment) that domination by global chains is inevitable (the NRDC seems to share this defeatist view) epitomizes why we enviros are perpetually on the defensive and begging for whatever weak concessions corproations are willing to give.
Contrary to his notion that we just prefer Wal-Mart, the chain's spread results largely from millions of dollars in subsidies from taxpayer's around the country and evading taxes, not market competition. The Wall St Journal recently ran a great story on how Wal-Mart has evaded taxes in about half the US states by setting up shell corporations, for example. (found by searching "Wal-Mart state tax evasion")
And Wal-mart is not exceptional in that regard--most corporate chains enrich their shareholders by stealing from the public. BTW, I've read her book Big Box Swindle and it truly is a "must read" for environmentalists -- I learned a ton from it.
Permalink
akbeancounter Posted 8:39 am
28 Mar 2007
Despite what the cable news channels might try to suggest, environmentalists aren't one international cabal of treehuggers who meet every Wednesday night at Bill Maher's house. We all have different opinions of what it will take to clean up the planet. Although this "greening" campaign doesn't qualify Wal*Mart for sainthood, it's a very big step in the right direction. You said it yourself: 3.5 MILLION megawatt-hours. Think of how much coal will go unburned because of that. Internal bickering about "this doesn't go far enough," or "I'm greener than you, so my opinion matters more" doesn't help anybody.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 3:12 pm
28 Mar 2007
You might be interested in Making Green by Going Green:
Now, while the entire Wal-Mart business model might be unsustainable (throwaway cheap goods from China bought by people driving SUVs to the Walmart far from public transportation), it is clear that they are striving mightily to cut their (and their suppliers) energy use and, as a corollary, the GHG footprint of their stores.
Is that a good thing?
I tend to say yes ...
Permalink
dvashgadol Posted 5:54 am
29 Mar 2007
As was mentioned, there are definitely things to lament about the existence of Wal-Mart in town, such as its effects on local stores. But there is a benefit to having an efficient distribution system like they have; it's good for distribution trucks to save fuel by having as few stops as possible, and Wal-Mart's trucks have very few deliveries to make.
I'm not a Wal-Mart evangelist by any stretch, but they are here, and there is nothing we can do to reverse their reach or influence, so it does make me happy to see them using their market power to have a green influence.
Permalink
schutzmobile Posted 12:38 pm
30 Mar 2007
I think that this article hit the nail on the head. Big box stores have so many negative side effects on walkable communities, free market competition, fair wages, housing affordability, automobile emmissions, etc., the best thing we can do is to spend our money at other businesses....but its gotten so bad, that if I want to buy a bath towel, I hardly know where to go but to a big box retailer.
What's the quickest way to alter our course?...I would say changes to zoning policy. What's the best way?...I think market forces such as conciencious consumers and property taxes that account for infrastructure cost and environmental impact. At the rate we are using up non-renewable resources and going into debt (individually and nationally), I just hope we can find balance so as to minimize the economic and environmental consequences.
Permalink
jrusch Posted 5:34 am
02 Apr 2007
The "we can't stop Walmart anyway" argument is like saying we can't stop tax evasion through enforcement, or unnaturally cheap oil through taxes, or cheap foreign labor through trade agreements, or construction and maintenance of all those big highway/boulevards through rezoning, etc.-- all things that are indeed under our control. We can stop Walmart, even under our current free market rules, we're just choosing not to.
My guess is that under the above unsubsididized scenarios, a higher priced Walmart would still be useful for a lot of people, just a lot less often, and the country would be healthier for it.
Excellent article, I'm going to buy the book!
Permalink
edwa8511 Posted 1:26 am
03 Apr 2007
Like other people have said here, "if you don't like it, don't buy it." People need to stop singling out businesses and act on the industry. I am sick of people complaining about Wal-Mart; I don't like the place for many reasons, but keep finding myself defending there right to pursue the American dream...
Permalink
ulrace Posted 1:36 am
03 Apr 2007
Works for me.
bob
Permalink
duckadt Posted 11:58 am
06 Apr 2007
Regarding CO2 emissions. Gasoline usage in the US expanded by 2.6% from Jan 2006 to Jan 2007 (historically this has been between 1 and 1.5% per year) at a time when a majority of Americans believe that burning of fossil fuels is directly causing global warming and when the price of gasoline is still historically high. I'm betting that a minuscule percentage of that increase
is due to traveling to Walmart (where people are buying items they need to live) and a larger percentage is spent going to places that are not directly related to buying essntials for living.
If we want to make a difference reducing CO2 emissions we need to quit bashing Walmart and start bashing our own driving habits. How many people could walk to church/school that don't because they can't roll out of bed soon enough? How many of these people that are using 2.6% more gasoline this year than the previous year complain about the high price of gasoline and choose to ignore that their increased usage directly contributes to the higher price by making the supply that much more tight? I'll bet that Ms. Mitchell emitted more CO2 in the
writing of this article (driving to Walmart's to take pictures) than many of us use in a month going to Walmart to buy essentials. The point is that if you want to make a difference and
reduce the amount of CO2 that is emitted, a large part of the answer lies collectively inside each of us Americans and not in the dissection of any particular corporation's CO2 reduction strategy. I realize that this is "an inconvenient truth" but one that we must collectively embrace if we really want to slow golbal warming.
Remember a large flood starts with a lot of little trickles.
Permalink
Paula Craig Posted 9:00 am
08 Apr 2007
Permalink
Liara Covert Posted 2:11 pm
09 Apr 2007
When fuel is cheap enough, people don't notice the added economic expense of travelling to a particular store. However, if people had to ride a horse or a bike because of lack of fuel or overly expensive fuel, they may change their mind. The idea of creating public transport to Wal*mart stores may temporarily reduce financial cost for an individual, but it wouldn't mask the other environmental costs of the large-scale store system forever. Promoting the purchase of newer, expendible products and bringing all these goods under one roof has consequences. It's a bit ironic people may shop there for what they believe are the absolute 'cheapest' prices. People rarely think of the additional time and money spent on fuel to travel which should be added to their bottom line prices. What is purchased really stresses ecosystems when goods are moved great distances. This could be more expensive long-term than we think. Lower prices mean people who make what we buy in other places aren't being paid well to look after their families, sanitation and other environments. Who cuts corners and who reaps benefits? When people get sick, and environmental disasters occur, borders don't hold back disease, forced migrants or other crises. Worry of local economic impact of cutting huge numbers of jobs of Wal*mart employees might be replaced with enthusiasm about getting innovative to create jobs with more global, eco-friendly practices in mind.
Permalink
dscrogg954 Posted 9:45 am
10 Apr 2007
We can complain about Walmart all we want but as long as we want to dress fashionably, eat a variety of foods and have electronic gadgets, we are going to cause environmental damage. I don't foresee the North American people buying into living with one pair of shoes, one shirt, one pair of pants, no air conditioning and walking everywhere like my grandparents did. Therefore, while I agree we need to keep pushing for greener businesses, I think we should at least give a nod of approval to the meager efforts that are put into place. No it is not "enough" but it is "something" which is better than "nothing".
Permalink
LaurieS Posted 12:01 pm
11 Apr 2007
WalMart and other big box stores like Home Depot pioneered the strategy of forcing domestic suppliers to take their operations to China. This is so anti-green that there's no amount of store energy-efficiency or packaging reduction that can make a dent in the overall bashing the environment takes in getting the goods from there to here and everywhere else.
Environmental controls that made domestic manufacturing less toxic to the planet are not in force in China, and now the Chinese can't breathe their own air and their water is catastrophically fouled. What's more, folks, the excessive CO2 emissions that are generated on the other side of the world affect all of us everywhere. And China may be far away, but it's still part of our environment.
Vast number of containers, on petroleum-fueled container ships using up limited petroleum resources and belching pollutants as well as particulates and yet more CO2, cross the Pacific constantly. That's our air, too, and oh, part of our food supply and protein source for the world...Not to mention heat sink and climate controller.
Think the excessively long-distance travel of goods that could have been - and used to be - made locally isn't a noticeable, measurable, factor with tangible detrimental effects (and high costs that aren't factored into the nominal cost of the goods)? The port city (Long Beach, CA, if memory serves) where those container ships unload has extremely high asthma rates because of the intense air pollution generated by the container ships.
Because WalMart goods are cheap (in both senses), the easy availibility and disposability encourages short-term ongoing consumption rather than long-term investment in a quality product. I can't tell you how much usable stuff I've picked up at our local transfer station over the years. Easy come, easy go.
To those who say that hey, WalMart's just giving consumers what they want, or, let's not penalize them for having a business plan that works, I say, No Excuses, please. What you're really saying is that WalMart should be let off the hook for consciously choosing to opportunistically profit from ignorance, mindless consumerism, and the basest race-to-the-bottom, what's-in-it-for-me mentality. We all know that people love to be told what they want to hear, and by the same token, when you build a business plan on the idea that it's really OK to save 5 bucks and sell your neighbor's job down the river, it helps legitimize selfishness in the public mind.
Yes, we need more consumer consciousness; yes, each of us needs to continue changing our own driving and consumption habits. But as long as there's an easy way out like WalMart, and as long as people keep taking this terrible, 'hey, we can't beat 'em so let's just stop talking about the (very real) problem,' there will continue to be a large segment of the population who, because the defeatists and rationalizers are diluting the message, will remain ignorant & seduced by the apparent convenience and deceptively low prices of the big boxes. Don't lay down and die by degrees! The only way those unthinking consumers will ever start 'thinking outside the Box' is if we all keep hammering: No slack for WalMart; their entire business model is anti-environment (not to mention anti-people). Until they stop supporting environmentally-exploitive manufacturing and global transport, nothing they can do will begin to offset the damage they do.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 1:30 am
12 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreencounselNZ Posted 11:17 pm
13 Apr 2007
Slightly off topic, but I am curious as to why greater mileage is not being made out of the emissions from Air Force One. Arguably the greatest individual emitter on earth is the President. Consider his 68,000 miles or so of travel last election year. He travels in a 747, producing about 300 persons worth of emissions per mile flown. My rough calculations (using standard carbon measuring sites) suggest that he produces perhaps 1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum - personally. The equivalent output of a moderately sized thermal power station.
Accordingly, the huge symbolism of the President waving from the steps of Airforce One becomes a potent statement about the current crisis.
And how powerful it would be to turn that around. Air Force One taken out of service to serve the greater good.
But then, I see that the US Airforce is working hard on biofuels. So presumably AFI could be converted. And would that be greenwashing or not?
Permalink
yoder Posted 10:27 am
22 Apr 2007
I speak with my wallet and buy at small local stores whenever possible. When it is not possible, then I buy at small "not so local" stores. I may pay more, but I believe the "efficiency" that the major corporations crow about is destructive to local and rural economies.
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 2:59 pm
26 Apr 2007
The 15 megatons of American vehicle carbon emissions needs to be considered against 1) how much fuel would be expended in traditional mom and pop operations (somewhat less by the consumer, but far more by the less efficient distribution network) and 2) per capita carbon emissions altogether, which are dominated by industrial and utility sources, and which for the US, total over 400 times the amount being discussed here.
See here on
Wikipedia; multiply per capita emissions by a quarter billion.
If Wal-Mart reduces their global impact that won't bring back most of the friendly little downtowns, but it will be much better than if they hadn't reduced their global impact. It certainly has softened me on them. They appear to be taking the matter seriously. I am sure it is a cold and self-interested calculation, but if that is the way the marketplace goes, that is not a bad thing.
Permalink
LaurieS Posted 1:54 pm
28 Apr 2007
I'm a small retailer, and my store stock comes predominantly from 2 large distributors that specialize in serving my industry (natural foods) and deliver to me by tractor-trailer. I really doubt that WalMart's distribution is any more efficient than that which serves small stores. Distributors have to maximize their efficiency; they plan out routes very carefully and will not deliver to anyone if the extra stop means more than a couple of miles off the route they'd be taking anyway. In my 6 years in business, this has consistently been an issue. What that tells me is that the more little stores on an established delivery route, the better the efficiency of the run. My store actually helps make that run greener than it would be if I wasn't here - those trucks would be going past me anyway. Given the volume of product a Wal-Mart moves each day, I'm assuming that a single Wal-Mart must be served by several semis a day that come directly from the warehouse specifically to that store that perhaps drive right past many other Wal-Marts (I don't know that for a fact; I'm just guessing); how is that more efficient than a truck that sets out from the warehouse and delivers to 2 dozen stores - and picks up stock along the way to bring back to the warehouse - in a carefully-planned route? If I'm wrong in my guess about how the goods get to a Wal-Mart, and in fact a given truck makes a loop from a distant warehouse to several different WalMarts, then that's no different than what my distributors do and just bolsters my argument.
Then factor in the energy savings if the 500 or so people in my small town would shop at my store instead of driving to the nearest Wal-Mart (which is over 30 miles in either direction, or I'd probably be out of business): the improvement in efficiency over the current state would be astonishing. Again, as I said in my earlier and admittedly preachy comment (sorry - it said "Soapbox" so I got up on it) there's nothing Mal-Wart can do in terms of building or packaging efficiency that can possibly offset the damage they do just by existing - first, as stated above, in the damage they do in manufacturing the goods overseas and then shipping them here, and then as Ms. Mitchell's piece stated, in drawing shoppers away from businesses like mine that they could literally walk to and into their cars instead for that 40-minute drive.
In our town, we don't have a general merchandise store; we're too small. But there used to one, an Ames, in a town about 17 miles away. That was a relatively close source for anything from housewares and small electronics to kids' shoes and office supplies. Then Wal-Mart came to a small city a further 15 or so miles away, and that was the death knell for the Ames. The new Wal-Mart siphoned off so many shoppers like children after the Pied Piper that now everyone has to drive the extra 30+ mile round trip: there's nowhere else to buy those things. Even those who chose to shop locally as long as they could had the decision to drive further forced on them when the Ames was driven out of business by shoppers who couldn't see past the end of their own noses. Thanks to Wal-Mart, the days when you could get by with what you could find within walking distance of your house - that is, when a civilized life in a small town without owning a car was quite possible - are coming to a close. It's all part of the trend over the last, what, 75 years? of making everything more auto-dependent and more hostile to people and civic life.
But the awareness created by people like Ms Mitchell is making a difference. Wal-Mart's sales have been affected negatively, which, as someone noted above, is very likely the single greatest impetus for this new initiative of theirs. So they're not impervious...remember, David won! So keep on boycotting, keep on showing those films, and don't be suckered by the green veneer.
P.S. My store is 2 miles from my house, and my daughter and I bike to work most of the year. Local stores tend to be staffed by people who live nearby. So even getting the staff to the local stores is more efficient than getting Wal-Mart employees to their distant and dreary stations each day...and by the way, have you heard about their new staffing policy, in which they want to send their employees home during slow times, and bring them back for the peak times? Think about the impact of that on air quality, traffic congestion, and fuel consumption! - twice as much travel for the same few hours' worth of pay!
Permalink
LaurieS Posted 2:31 pm
28 Apr 2007
But besides that, I also wanted to comment on your statement that "if WalMart reduced their global impact that still wouldn't bring back most of the friendly little downtowns."
I've already tried to make a case for my belief that the only way Wal-Mart can really reduce their global impact in any meaningful way is if they go out of business: their whole business model is so fundamentally and catastrophically bad for the environment there's no way they can possibly significantly offset the damage they must do. And if we stay smart, don't fall for the greenwashing, keep making noise, more people will start to think like us, and eventually there will be fewer Wal-Marts. And then, yes, the friendly little downtowns would come back. The entrepreneurial spirit of the average person is very strong; lots of people dream of having their own little Main Street business. Give them a business environment in which they stand a chance of succeeding and it's nothing short of amazing the way they'll stick their necks out - and that's a critical part of what makes a town into a community, instead of a cold collation of cookie-cutter concrete boxes siphoning local dollars - and personal information - off to distant corporate headquarters, and staffed by bored workers in dead-end jobs.
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 4:24 am
30 Apr 2007
Yes of course Main Street would come back if Wal-Mart like businesses were regulated out of existence. Would that be better for the towns of America? Yes, I think so.
Would that be better for energy consumption and the world environment? Maybe not.
I am not saying I don't want the downtowns back. I think Wal-Mart has the right to operate within the law, and you have the right to oppose them within the law, both with regulations and with competition.
Saying that the community interest and the global interest are the same does not make it so, though. You can insist all you want, but lots of people insist on lots of stuff that just ain't so.
One lesson actually being a scientist teaches over and over is that the world doesn't always conform to our intuitions. Is large scale always good or always bad? I think this is too big a question for a simple answer in general.
We are in too much trouble to base our behavior on pure intuition.
Is industrial agriculture bad? I don't like it, but then again I know there are six billion people on earth, and there were only one billion a century ago.
I am not sure that reversing course on agribusiness is possible in the next few human generations. Until the size of the population becomes sustainable, I suspect traditional small scale community based living will be a luxury.
I'd love to be convinced otherwise, but alas, I'm not.
Permalink
jk Posted 6:04 am
30 Apr 2007
Permalink
vadefa Posted 2:23 pm
02 May 2007
Permalink
I am a Conservative Posted 6:01 am
13 May 2007
You describe as the "key issue" that Wal-Mart and other big box retailers are causing some portion of the increase in total driving in the US because they create a retail distribution structure with fewer stores that are therefore farther away, on average, from people's homes.
There is something to this argument, but it is one side of a trade-off, and it is not clear whether Wal-Mart increases or decreases total driving.
One of the features of Wal-Mart is that it allows consumers to combine several trips that would otherwise be separate drives into one trip. A typical Wal-Mart Supercenter (almost entirely what they are building these days) combines a large grocery store, gas station, clothing store, electronics and appliance store, pharmacy, health clinic and other features in one location. So, while I may now have to go 10 miles to the WMSC instead of 3 miles to my local grocery store, I don't have to do a separate 3 mile trip (or added 1.5 mile segment) to a Kmart and another 0.5 mile segement to my favorite gas station and so on. It's not totally unlike the idea of a mall.
Obviously, if my alternative was to drive 1 mile to a downtown area where I would then walk between stores, it clearly increases net driving. If, on the other hand, I lived exactly at the mid-point of a square 8 miles on a side with the nearest grocery store, clothing store, gas station and electronics store at the four corners, then replacing one of these with a Wal-Mart would definitely reduce total driving.
It's actually complicated, and would take a lot more analysis of the spatial distribution of shopping trips with vs. without Wal-Mart, rather than your simple assertion, to answer the question as to the net impact of Wal-Mart on total US driving.
Best,
Jim Manzi
Permalink
Solar Roadways Posted 3:25 am
18 May 2007
Last year, I wrote letters to Andy Ruben and Lee Scott. I had seen Andy's name in an article about Wal-Mart wanting to go off-grid. Lee Scott is Wal-Mart's CEO. They forwarded their letters to David Ozment, who works in the Wal-Mart Energy Department. David's title is Director of Regulated Utilities.
My letter detailed a project that I'm working on called the Solar Roadways. In a nutshell, current asphalt roads, parking lots, and driveways are replaced by solar panels that you drive on. The Solar Roadway replaces the nation's aging power grid and provides a data (phone, cable TV, high-speed internet, etc.) conduit to businesses and homes via their parking lots and driveways. Replacing fossil fuel methods for generating electricity would cut CO2 emissions in half.
We need financial backing to get our project off the ground. Wal-Mart has the deep pockets that would be required. We thought that their rash of bad PR with environmental organizations might give them the incentive to fund our project and take all the credit they wanted.
I presented a method to take their stores off-grid by replacing their parking lots with the Solar Road Panels. These panels would not only produce the electricity needed to run their stores, but melt the snow and ice off their parking lots in northern climates.
David and I talked on the phone for approximately half an hour. David was very cordial and open to the idea, but explained that Wal-Mart would not be interested until we get past the prototype stages. In other words, when we're ready to sell the panels, they'd be interested in looking into it.
In the meantime, he explained that Wal-Mart was in the process of installing Solar Panels on top of their buildings. Anything that Wal-Mart does in this direction should have a hugh impact based solely on their size and carbon footprint. Giants move slow, but at least they seem to be moving in the right direction.
As far as the additional CO2 produced by the customers of large retailers, think of this: the Solar Roadway carries renewable, clean electricity. All-electric vehicles can plug in to recharge in parking lots. We can drive all we want and not worry about running out of power or contributing to global warming. Maybe Wal-Mart can sell them cheap enough so that we can all afford one!
Scott Brusaw
Solar Roadways
http://www.solarroadways.com
Permalink
pinkyracer Posted 5:16 am
23 Jun 2008
Permalink