Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but putting "green makeup" on superficial retail outlets and bragging that they changed lightbulbs (or whatever) and use 25% less energy -- something Walmart should have been doing all along (except greed got in the way) -- does not absolve Walmart of its carbon footprint past or present. Plus, how do you "make green" an organization whose very existence and profit depends on a consumer culture that's grossly adverse to the environment on a massive scale?
The next step in Walmarts bag of tricks to fool us all into leaving our money there is "local washing." Walmart is already prepared for this round of PR challenges, and in a preemptive strike is beginning to "customize" its retail stores per local. Again, more smoke and mirrors. The essence of Walmart is anything BUT local, and all about centralized profits.
How does the decision to not use lighting that would save 25% on energy make them greedy? If they were greedy, someone should be fired for being stupid.
And the green movement does not seem to be consistent. Look at the recent posts on higher regulations on aircraft fuel efficiency and inter city rail versus air travel. It seems that no one gets terribly fired up about those sacred cows who are in the traveling elite. Why they say that it's faster to drive and more convienient. Sounds like a little hypocracy there.
How does the decision to not use lighting that would save 25% on energy make them greedy? If they were greedy, someone should be fired for being stupid
It's based on greed. If Walmart was as "green" as they want as to believe, they would have had more efficient lighting systems because it was the right thing to do for the environment. A few years back -- when oil and energy were cheap -- it didn't matter to Walmart that their energy usage was harming the environment. All of a sudden when the price for energy shoots up, they change the bulbs, bow, and ask all of us to congratulate them for being environmentally friendly when the motivation was greed. It's "green washing" pure and simple. The number 1 concern for Walmart is PROFIT! Not green, not local.
It's based on greed. If Walmart was as "green" as they want as to believe, they would have had more efficient lighting systems because it was the right thing to do for the environment. A few years back -- when oil and energy were cheap -- it didn't matter to Walmart that their energy usage was harming the environment. All of a sudden when the price for energy shoots up, they change the bulbs, bow, and ask all of us to congratulate them for being environmentally friendly when the motivation was greed. It's "green washing" pure and simple. The number 1 concern for Walmart is PROFIT! Not green, not local.
Anyone in business understands that controlling costs are paramount, whatever they may be, however small they may be. Since I do not equate greedy with misusing shareholder funds, quite the contrary, I cannot accept your premise.
Anyone in business understands that controlling costs are paramount, whatever they may be, however small they may be. Since I do not equate greedy with misusing shareholder funds, quite the contrary, I cannot accept your premise.
I think the point is really missed here. Controlling costs is just that: controlling costs. But don't try to pawn it off as an inherent benevolent respect for the environment. This is what Walmart has done. Walmart gives two hoots about the environment -- until there is a profit to be made. Walmart changed its light bulbs and saved 25% on energy when it became the financially responsible thing to do. Not because it was the environmentally responsible thing to do.
I think the point is really missed here. Controlling costs is just that: controlling costs. But don't try to pawn it off as an inherent benevolent respect for the environment. This is what Walmart has done. Walmart gives two hoots about the environment -- until there is a profit to be made. Walmart changed its light bulbs and saved 25% on energy when it became the financially responsible thing to do. Not because it was the environmentally responsible thing to do.
cre8, I agree with you. It was a good business decision and it probably was not implemented soon enough. I simply was taking exception to the point that somehow the prime directive for everyone is to be green at all costs.
In my state the state employees pension fund is in good shape, allowing very generous benefits for retirees. The governor wanted to invest more in local green companies. The employess said - don't mess with our nest egg. Exxon is number one in their portfolio and Chevron and big pharmacuticals round out the top ten investments in the fund. It seems that the state touting green does not want to take actions that may affect the financial future of the state's employees.
So WalMart touts being somewhat "green". It's a business decision to market that. Is it not an outright marketing decision when universities and organizations appy for government grants purely on a green subject matter? They know that their chances of getting funding, i.e., increasing their profits, is better by touting green.
All sides really need to take a deep breath and consider all of the extremely complex issues associated with the issue. That is all I meant to say.
cre8, I agree with you. It was a good business decision and it probably was not implemented soon enough. I simply was taking exception to the point that somehow the prime directive for everyone is to be green at all costs.
In my state the state employees pension fund is in good shape, allowing very generous benefits for retirees. The governor wanted to invest more in local green companies. The employess said - don't mess with our nest egg. Exxon is number one in their portfolio and Chevron and big pharmacuticals round out the top ten investments in the fund. It seems that the state touting green does not want to take actions that may affect the financial future of the state's employees.
So WalMart touts being somewhat "green". It's a business decision to market that. Is it not an outright marketing decision when universities and organizations appy for government grants purely on a green subject matter? They know that their chances of getting funding, i.e., increasing their profits, is better by touting green.
All sides really need to take a deep breath and consider all of the extremely complex issues associated with the issue. That is all I meant to say.
I don't disagree with you, UpperPeninsulaRon. Investment portfolios and big-business decisions where large sums are at stake are complex questions, and the wrong decisions can have severe consequences across many sectors.
But I'm just trying to focus on the one issue of Walmart's claim to be "green" (and more recently "local"). Gimme' a break! Walmart's very existence depends the consumer culture, which is wholesale destroying the environment on many levels. So when Walmart puts itself forward as a "eco friendly" to me it sounds a little like, let's say, a clear-cutting forestry operation claiming to be "green" because they use bio-fuel in their chainsaws. It's utterly ridiculous! Moreover, I'm insulted by Walmart's attempts to have us believe their spin, and worse -- congratulate them by leaving our money there. Never!
I shopped at Walmart today, and got the best prices on flowers around. I like Walmart. And I don't give a hoot if their being "green" is ridiculous. I shop at Walmart because I save money by doing so. And until some greenie wants to give me some money to cover what I would have to spend shopping somewhere else, I will continue to do so.
If making money for shareholders is so bad, then someone needs to lead an effort to nationalize everything. And then everyone can be equally poor.
I don't disagree with you, UpperPeninsulaRon. Investment portfolios and big-business decisions where large sums are at stake are complex questions, and the wrong decisions can have severe consequences across many sectors.
But I'm just trying to focus on the one issue of Walmart's claim to be "green" (and more recently "local"). Gimme' a break! Walmart's very existence depends the consumer culture, which is wholesale destroying the environment on many levels. So when Walmart puts itself forward as a "eco friendly" to me it sounds a little like, let's say, a clear-cutting forestry operation claiming to be "green" because they use bio-fuel in their chainsaws. It's utterly ridiculous! Moreover, I'm insulted by Walmart's attempts to have us believe their spin, and worse -- congratulate them by leaving our money there. Never!
Could you please elaborate for me and lists some large national chains who DO NOT EXIST FOR PROFIT and ARE NOT DRIVEN BY CONSUMERISM?
People diss WalMart for one reason and one reason only: they have been more successful at what all the other companies have tried to do and could not figure out, which is quiet simply, climbing to the top of the business ladder.
Personally I applaud them for many of the changes they have made. They have shown that they are willing to listen when their customers are not happy. Sure the changes aren't overnight, but when was the last time you saw a company change quickly because a group of radicals demanded they do things different?
As for the applause, I don't think Walmart has asked anyone to give them applause, praise, or any special recognition. They are simply trying to market the changes they have made just like every other business out there is trying to do right now. Like Al Gore for instance. He started marketing his stances on global warming when it came most convenient: after he was out of office. Sure he talked a little big talk as VP. But he did nothing to push Kyoto through and now he along with all his minions lambast Bush for not signing up for the Kyoto scam. Gore had nothing to lose once out of office. Their are plenty of people on the green wagon, with green bills the only thing they are really concerned with.
I have to fully agree in some areas, as a employee, of the yuckmart they are trying to do quite a bit to go green a lot that is behind the sceens that no one knows about.
for as large of a company as it realy is, it seems that some one up there in charge is starting to take notice and make some changes. We now recycle all cardboard and plastic, from the store as well as the break room, all the hangers we sell are no longer plastic, they are corn and bio degradable, they have highway clean up days where employees get paid to go out and try to clean up some of the mess along the highways, they have recently added a much larger organic section, and all the laundry detergents have gone to concentrted, to use less waste and water in the making.
There are many aspects of it they are trying to do right. As for good for the community, well its a big business, as with any big business there are drawbacks.
They do pay, not sure about the walmart where you work, but i work over nights stocking (could not get me in the store during the day, i shop at the other marts, much quieter and slower.) But i have been there a year and i'm making over $10 a hour. which for montana and the wages around here is not a bad pay. There are many drawbacks to working for them, but every company has its problems.
as for a long term carreer, naaa cant see me doing it, i have apps in a few other places i should find out this week, fingers crossed i should be clearing 5k a month shortly. But for starting out or retiring, its a decent place to put in your time and draw a paycheck.
I shopped at Walmart today, and got the best prices on flowers around. I like Walmart. And I don't give a hoot if their being "green" is ridiculous. I shop at Walmart because I save money by doing so. And until some greenie wants to give me some money to cover what I would have to spend shopping somewhere else, I will continue to do so.
If making money for shareholders is so bad, then someone needs to lead an effort to nationalize everything. And then everyone can be equally poor.
It's ironic, but Walmart is doing exactly what you're implying they're not doing: making everyone equally poor -- except the corporate heads in Arkansas.
Walmart wants to own the whole production, supply, sales and marketing chain in whatever area they can get their hands on? If you're ok with this, then shop Walmart. Just remember that there may come a day when Walmart figures out a way to package your services (real-estate sales) as another "price-slashing, weekend shopping spree." Need a house? Go to Walmart! Maybe they'll hire former agents at $12/hr to help out. U like wearing a blue vest and happy-face button?
Last edited by Winston Smith; 04-19-2008 at 05:44 PM..
Reason: tYpO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
