Comments lrinaldi has made

that was a joke, right?

My initial reaction to this piece was: are you serious? The author of this article must be playing a trick on us, surely someone who contributes to such a progressive online publication as Grist would not posses such neolithic ideology. Perhaps it is merely a test to see how the public will respond. Unfortunately, I believe the author really stands by his convictions and that many others feel the same.

So I shall begin my critique with the one assertion I did agree with: "multi-outlet retailers simply aren't to blame for the car-oriented society in which we find ourselves."

While poor urban planning, greedy corporations, and insufficient government support is the main reason we have such a car-dependant society, major chain stores sure don't help solve that problem.

Now I shall continue with the points that I disagree with most.

"By offering only giant quantities, Sam's Club minimizes both shopping trips and packaging -- it doesn't even offer grocery bags."

It is not illogical to think that smaller businesses could do the same (some already do). When you buy produce directly from the source, from a farming co-operative for example, you avoid packaging and plastic bags, many deliver an assortment of vegetables to you in a box. Also, if you go to a market where produce is put in bags for you to take away, you can always bring your own, thus avoiding the unnecessary waste.

"Large chains are also easier to monitor -- and pressure...Criticism of Wal-Mart clearly has played a role in its much-ballyhooed recent initiatives to improve environmental performance and give more employees health insurance"

I would argue that this statement is misinformed. First of all, by putting so much control into the hands of one super store, you are actually facing a much more difficult entity to pressure than a mixture of smaller more independent businesses. You create a system with no checks and balances. For example, Wal-Mart wants to become the number one supplier of organic food. What does this mean for the organic industry? We have recently lost the battle to maintain the integrity of the organic standard, and that was a hard enough fight with the smaller of the "big boxes" against us, but when a super power like Wal-Mart controls the industry they set the standards. If Wal-Mart does not want strict organic standards, then there will be none. And that is just how the cookie crumbles in monopoly markets.

Now you might say, "but Wal-Mart would love to support tighter organic standards. They really are trying to green themselves! And they want to help their workers too!" If you believe this, then you are falling into the very trap that Wal-Mart's PR department has set. While Lee Scott was busy waxing philosophical about the federal minimum wage, a memo from the board was leaked that was brainstorming tactics to cut costs which included such things as hiring less full time staff and more part-time staff. As you may or may not know, this would allow them to get away with providing fewer benefits due to their employees' part-time status. Their constant contradictions between what they say and what they actually do leads me to believe that their stance is far from genuine.  

"And having money is what enables us to afford a cleaner, healthier environment."

We would not need money to clean up our environment if we did not destroy it in the first place.  

"We may not envy workers in developing countries who take factory jobs, but apparently they vastly prefer these to the rural life they are leaving behind in droves."

People flee from rural life because modern development has left them no choice. Their means of livelihood are taken away. And when you have little to no formal education, which many people who live in rural communities do not, this leaves little choice but to take the only jobs that will hire unskilled labor. (I say "formal" education as to not imply that the people who work in factories are uneducated, but simply to express that some may not posses the degree or background required to get better jobs). Perhaps you should take a trip to our very own border with Mexico and ask some of the people who work in the Maquiladores just how good they feel about their current situation.

"Economists have shown again and again that environmental conditions worsen as a country develops, only to improve again as it grows affluent enough to demand and afford cleaner water and air."

This is because our current model of development is completely flawed. You are totally leaving out the option for sustainable development as opposed to corporate backed unsustainable development that degrades the environment and society.

Unfortunately your idealistic view of how capitalism pulls the impoverished from the bondage of destitution is a bit misinformed. The reason we are able to get our $10 pair of jeans from Wal-Mart, or Target, etc, is because it costs them so little to produce. The fastest and most efficient way to reduce production costs is to do so at the expense of the workers and the environment. The reason that fair trade products cost so much, is less because it is a niche market (although that does play some part), and more because they are charging more money to support a higher standard of production.

I think the major flaw with your thought process is that you have accepted the current norm as the only realistic possibility, and not examined how that norm is a complete contradiction to a healthy and sustainable environment and population. It is not enough for big box businesses to adopt more environmentally friendly standards, what we really need to do is change the entire system as well as our outlook. The goals of a major money hungry corporation will never mesh with the real goals of the environmental and social justice movement. We need to consume less, not just change our production patterns, we need to push truly sustainable development practices, and yes, we need to support local business. Then, and only then, will we find a world that we can truly sustain for generations to come.
On Could chain stores actually be good for the environment? posted 4 years ago 19 Responses