Wal-Mart's Big Green Claim, Part 2

I agree, and I think that we can look to Biblical sources for examples in ancient times of God's values of justice, freedom, and a share for those left out of the structure of society (widows, orphans,jubilee). There are no prophets I know of who wrote encouraging the rich to have free reign--the need to empower large nations or mega-corporations even if smaller ones or individuals are harmed. Our role as consumers gives us power to make choices just as voting in elections does, and more often. Both are tracked, and one is paid more attention to at some times, and some times the other.

I agree, and I think that we can look to Biblical sources for examples in ancient times of God's values of justice, freedom, and a share for those left out of the structure of society (widows, orphans,jubilee). There are no prophets I know of who wrote encouraging the rich to have free reign--the need to empower large nations or mega-corporations even if smaller ones or individuals are harmed. Our role as consumers gives us power to make choices just as voting in elections does, and more often. Both are tracked, and one is paid more attention to at some times, and some times the other.

I hear your heart. I was recently traveling through Dubai, and was struck by this same thing. Not at all to say malls are bad (I ended up buying a Qur'an there), nor that Dubai is worse than the US. We are all guilty of this rampant materialism. It just seems more intense, more over the top, in Dubai. I was struck by this while listening to the call to prayer in the mall, and watching everyone continue to shop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPTAJEI8YRM&feat...

Good question. I should have clarified that one. "Free Trade" as we know it today is not really free at all. Which, it sounds like, you definitely understand well. I support the idea, where (and I know this is phenomenally idyllic and naive) people/corporations etc., if left to their own devices, would operate free from government to the mutual benefit of one another. In more spiritual terms, free trade, in theory, could work best if the traders and recipients of goods upheld God's best in all of their transactions. If we were concerned about all the people involved in the transaction and if we all worked for the mutual benefit of all the parties involved. In short, if we worked for justice. Which, pulls spiritual values into an arena (like all of life) where they sometimes show up and often times are very absent.

Today, what we call free trade, usually harms others, steps on those with little or no voice, harms communities, the environment and many times the consumer as well. All this so that someone on the purchasing end can say "I got a good deal" to perpetuate the system. I support a system of free trade where BOTH parties benefit. This does happen in some places but sadly, not in enough places.

I'm still looking for a statement that Wal-Mart won't buy goods that are produced under sweatshop conditions by people being paid only minimally.

I'm not holding my breath.

Couldn't you have waited to criticize Walmart's "green" efforts until after they actually began implementing their "greening up"?"...this does not mean that products receiving poor marks will be banned from the shelves; it just shifts the burden of deciding what to do from them to the consumer."So it's left up to the consumer what products they choose to buy? Well, we can't be having any of that. Can't some Czar of Walmart Products take care of that for us?

"My understanding of manufacturing in China is that production there is loosely regulated and at times, impossible to monitor."Yeah, that's most people's understanding of Chinese production. Yes, they work a lot harder than us, but they work these jobs voluntarily. Hard work beats starving to death. Since China started to liberalize their trade policy millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. "I am not an economist, and if you happen to be an economist who is reading this post, you are likely wincing. But what I am trying to say is that ultimately, a system based on consistently manipulating the consumer to spend is a system based on filling our insatiable needs and desires."You don't have to be an economist to understand that free trade is a good thing. And economists also understand external costs like environmental degradation. Trade helps economies develop, and developed economies can afford to make better environmental decisions.

Walmart is no more responsible for an individuals vice of consumerism than your local organic food coop.

Ditto, DITE!

Good question. I should have clarified that one. "Free Trade" as we know it today is not really free at all. Which, it sounds like, you definitely understand well. I support the idea, where (and I know this is phenomenally idyllic and naive) people/corporations etc., if left to their own devices, would operate free from government to the mutual benefit of one another. In more spiritual terms, free trade, in theory, could work best if the traders and recipients of goods upheld God's best in all of their transactions. If we were concerned about all the people involved in the transaction and if we all worked for the mutual benefit of all the parties involved. In short, if we worked for justice. Which, pulls spiritual values into an arena (like all of life) where they sometimes show up and often times are very absent.

Today, what we call free trade, usually harms others, steps on those with little or no voice, harms communities, the environment and many times the consumer as well. All this so that someone on the purchasing end can say "I got a good deal" to perpetuate the system. I support a system of free trade where BOTH parties benefit. This does happen in some places but sadly, not in enough places.

I'm still looking for a statement that Wal-Mart won't buy goods that are produced under sweatshop conditions by people being paid only minimally.

I'm not holding my breath.

Couldn't you have waited to criticize Walmart's "green" efforts until after they actually began implementing their "greening up"?"...this does not mean that products receiving poor marks will be banned from the shelves; it just shifts the burden of deciding what to do from them to the consumer."So it's left up to the consumer what products they choose to buy? Well, we can't be having any of that. Can't some Czar of Walmart Products take care of that for us?

"My understanding of manufacturing in China is that production there is loosely regulated and at times, impossible to monitor."Yeah, that's most people's understanding of Chinese production. Yes, they work a lot harder than us, but they work these jobs voluntarily. Hard work beats starving to death. Since China started to liberalize their trade policy millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. "I am not an economist, and if you happen to be an economist who is reading this post, you are likely wincing. But what I am trying to say is that ultimately, a system based on consistently manipulating the consumer to spend is a system based on filling our insatiable needs and desires."You don't have to be an economist to understand that free trade is a good thing. And economists also understand external costs like environmental degradation. Trade helps economies develop, and developed economies can afford to make better environmental decisions.

Walmart is no more responsible for an individuals vice of consumerism than your local organic food coop.

From part 1: "[Walmart] will require their suppliers to list the environmental impact of their product on the label - meaning that the chemicals, packaging, shipping fuel, etc. that it takes to land an item on the shelf will need to be boiled down into a neat little label that tells the consumer exactly how much stress that box of CDs or that bath mat placed on our ecosystems. And while I am about to unleash my own version of skepticism on all of this, I will pause here to say I APPLAUD THEM FOR THIS."
....................
The "Harvard article" link isn't working so forgive me if I'm asking questions that were already addressed, but here's MY own version of skepticism on all of this:
I'm not sure what there is to applaud about it! It doesn't sound like Walmart is doing a damn thing here except creating more work for its suppliers. The products aren't any greener. The shipping isn't any greener. If they were going to the effort themselves to calculate the environmental effect and, for example- purchasing carbon-offsets to reduce the impact, that would at least be doing something.

I work for a company that imports a lot of product from China. The factories aren't responsible for knowing anything about the shipping fuel, and the shipping companies aren't responsible for the lead and phthalates in their cargo. No one part of the chain has that kind of info on any other part. The manufacturing importers- (the American companies that supply Walmart with all the goods they don't produce themselves) NOT the Chinese- are responsible for having all product tested and labeled and compliant with all U.S. safety/environmental laws, and for auditing the factories to weed out the sweat-shops and unsafe work environments. It costs A LOT to do that already! Putting the burden on the suppliers to research and calculate the complete environmental impact (just so that Walmart can look like it cares) is going to add to the cost of every item sold. Is Walmart willing to pay for this additional information that no one else requires, or will the suppliers be expected to eat the additional cost? Or will the retail customer?

This neat little label that's so easy for consumers to understand- who gets to set the guidelines for determining what level of environmental impact is negligible, acceptable, or extreme, and following through to see that the labels are truthful? Walmart? The FTC? CPSC? EPA? Different agencies have been studying the effects of chemicals used in manufacturing for decades now, and they can't even agree on what the impact is on the environment and human health. There is no accepted standard to follow to even establish a rating system.

As a consumer, I would love to actually have that information when deciding what to purchase. As an importer, I don't see how it's possible.
It just seems completely pointless! The best case scenario: people read the label on some Unnecessary Thingamabob and decide not to buy it because it has too negative an impact on the environment and it sits on the shelf until Walmart returns it for a full refund to the supplier (as is the policy in the contracts they usually make their suppliers agree to) AFTER all the chemicals, packaging, shipping fuel, etc. are already in it!

How exactly does that help the environment?

When I shop I notice the same products for the most part on all the major retail outlets . The made in china product I understand is a problem , but picking on Walmart because they are the better retailers never made sense to me . Why are not the other stores boycotted for selling the same products , but just at a higher price ?

Great thoughts! Thanks DITE! I agree that free trade is a good thing and I am not against free trade. And I also recognize that American industry has provided many a job for those who would not have them today were it not for corporations settling into places like China. I also have no problem at all with the Chinese worker. They work harder than most people I know and for that I am thankful. My simple struggle with Wal-Mart's claim is that it can entice the thoughtless consumer to suddenly feel some sort of eco-joy when perhaps there is nothing to celebrate. And that, since Wal-Mart is of course concerned about its bottom line (as indeed it should be), that even their green labeling is a source of ecological stress because it still keeps the wheels of rampant consumerism going.

It is more likely that someone will look at a product, something they may not need, will say "hey, well, it says here it's good for the planet so why not buy it?!" This flippant consumer attitude is what I am struggling against. Wal-Mart is only doing its job but part of their job is to entice us to buy things we do not need. My hope is to point out that we don't need to consume as much as we think we do. Green, Wal-Mart, or local co-op, we simply need less.

I won't vindicate Wal-Mart for this, but it sounds to me like one of the problems is that there's a lack of law enforcement in China (I only read the chinalaborwatch article). Such atrocities don't occur in the United States because law enforcement actually follows and enforces the laws. Bribes are harder to come by because of other penalties if caught. It's not like Wal-Mart can pay off OSHA. In China it's a different story.

Those of us who believe in free markets do believe in rule of law. In China, these conditions should be illegal, and by that I don't mean illegal in writing only, but actually illegal and enforced. My hunch is that whomever is employing workers there will think twice before pulling certain abusive acts.

Great thoughts! Thanks DITE! I agree that free trade is a good thing and I am not against free trade. And I also recognize that American industry has provided many a job for those who would not have them today were it not for corporations settling into places like China. I also have no problem at all with the Chinese worker. They work harder than most people I know and for that I am thankful. My simple struggle with Wal-Mart's claim is that it can entice the thoughtless consumer to suddenly feel some sort of eco-joy when perhaps there is nothing to celebrate. And that, since Wal-Mart is of course concerned about its bottom line (as indeed it should be), that even their green labeling is a source of ecological stress because it still keeps the wheels of rampant consumerism going.

It is more likely that someone will look at a product, something they may not need, will say "hey, well, it says here it's good for the planet so why not buy it?!" This flippant consumer attitude is what I am struggling against. Wal-Mart is only doing its job but part of their job is to entice us to buy things we do not need. My hope is to point out that we don't need to consume as much as we think we do. Green, Wal-Mart, or local co-op, we simply need less.