Return to the Sustaining Our Environment Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
Posted by EricWI (My Page) on Wed, Apr 13, 05 at 11:01
| Wal-Mart has announced their intention to spend 35 million dollars, over the next 10 years, to purchase at least 138,000 acres of land in the USA, as "priority wildlife habitat." This amount of land would be equivalent to all of the land that its stores, parking lots, and distribution centers now occupy.
The money would be donated to and controlled by the "National Fish & Wildlife Foundation." |
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Well, at least the country won't become a wall-to-wall mart now...at least a few little pieces anyways. vgkg |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| $254 per acre purchased, developed and managed; or about $25/acre per year (current dollars) with likely decreasing purchasing power of the dollar over that time? Or otherwise known as tokenism? |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
Here is a link that might be useful: tokenism
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
Yes, obviously "tokenism" and a tax write-off, but isn't it better than nothing????
Imagine if every giant corporation engaged in such tokenism...the world would be better for it, no? Regards, Shax (the naive). |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Shax, many other large corps are engaged in tokenism/greenwashing under the NFWF umbrella, Exxon/Mobile & Shell Oil to name just two. Here is a quick link to the page listing some of the partnerships: http://www.nfwf.org/corporatepart.htm . TNC has a similar greenwashing program. Is Walmart competing with them and other similar groups for a new race toward the bottom in conservation? The SanFrancisco Gate has this article about the deal with links to the websites of the different parties involved. |
Here is a link that might be useful: sfgate
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Thanks, Althea, for fleshing out my criticisms of Wal*Mart's greenwash tokenism. Shax, token programs never are better than good-faith efforts to conserve natural systems and features because WE have neither the skill nor the wisdom to recreate natural ecosystems. Moreover, man-made wet-lands (for example) rarely are stable but require extensive and on-going management to maintain the perceived "model" of original planned project. The few dollars alloted to this greenwash program is a joke. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| As usual, some environmentalists would complain if they were hung with a new rope. I suspect some of you would look for the base metal lining in every attempt a corporation makes to improve their image and at the same time do something for the environment. Conversely, environmental groups can pursue any of their pet agendas, sometimes even competing agendas, sometimes even based in unproven science, or worse yet, just simple emotional response, and they can do no wrong. I have heard their environmental actions, when proven to not be entirely sound, often defended with the phases, "It is still better than nothing.", or "Every little bit helps." Why the hypocrisy when the agents are corporations? Are you afraid corporations might be stealing your thunder and undermining your power base? For those who insist on seeing something wrong with this and other corporate environmental gestures, "Do you want some cheese to go with your whine?" |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| I have to agree with Shax that token programs are probably better than nothing and might add up to significant conservation of other big box stores followed suit, but concede that Marshall has a point that restoration is not a one to one fair exchange for habitat lost. Perhaps rather than an acre to acre exchange of land protected, maybe the formula could compute ecological value lost giving discounts for reusing developed abandoned shopping centers. I do like seeing something done to protect greenspace particularly when there seems to be little potential that this kind of development would ever be regulated formally. This kind of mitigation is afterall the basis for alot of what NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) accomplishes on federal projects and these big box developers are not legally required to do anything. Monte, I'll take socialist French brie with my whine. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Reminds me of an article I read some time back about NH's bragging that the then new network of freeways did not cause great losses of habitat because of the many flooded areas left in their wake. Even now there are sometimes extensive acreage of dead and dying trees flooded out behind elevated freeway routes. I'll take good Vt cheddar with my whine. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| IOW Monte, environmentalists are eminently flexible in their various approaches, but anti-environmentalists rely entirely on rhetoric. Did anyone notice the ultimate goal of the plan is for not just restoration but also grazing in the Western states? WalMart has quite a market share in beef and intends to gain a bigger share. This is just another rational question one might ask (are there any other reasons for making the contribution?) of a company that has shown no concern for, well, anything but making money. I'm lactose intolerant, so I'll have extra whine. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| I'm not sure about the grazing plan - I thought it was for wildlife grazing. Need to read the proposal with NFWF. One concern I have with the greenwash aspect is the perception that might be sold to the public that you could mitigate local negative effects of scattered hardscape development with few high profile land restoration efforts that would benefit only a particular region (seems like the west and Wall-Marts homestate - Arkansas). I would like to see efforts throughout the US. What percent of building footprint occupies populated lands in the east? |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| I don't think wildlife is required to get a permit for grazing. The ranches are required by law to continue grazing cattle, but the organizations would like to reduce the number to a sustainable level. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| I checked out the NFW site Althea - you're right about the grazing. Discovered that the Arkansas portion encompasses an area along the Buffalo River in the Ozarks that I used to canoe camp - a beautiful pristine mountain area with some nice whitewater. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Speaking of greenwashing, The Green Life handed out their annual Greenwash Awards yesterday. According to their Executive Summary, Greenwashing is problematic for three reasons. "Greenwash fools progressive consumers into supporting the economy’s unsustainable status quo; lures investors who link positive environmental performance with profitable financial performance; and misleads policy makers charged with designing and enforcing environmental regulations." For the list of "winners" ... |
Here is a link that might be useful: thegreenlife
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| I see no reason to criticise Wal-Mart for their efforts to develop habitat for wildlife at this time. It's too soon to tell what kind of job they will do. I rarely shop at big box chain stores, because I am not happy with the changes they have caused in my neighborhood. It is very difficult for small retail business to survive and prosper, because they have to compete with large chain stores with seemingly unlimited capital to work with. The one-stop big box store on the outskirts of town generates profits for the owners, and low prices for the customers. Part time retail jobs pay poorly, and further weaken the local economy. The issue is one of scale, and large stores with large parking lots don't fit well in either small towns or smaller cites, like Madison. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| SCALE...those large protrusion intrusive signage in my small town that you can see miles away as in any town should be illegal! Criticise no, cautious yes! Walmart has been doing the demographic location game for so long and is banned from building on many national park and federal park lands that it does seem suspicious to me, why even my 6 year old son knows how to act and be extra kind to get a cookie! |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| For the most part, the WalMart that came to our town has been good for the other small stores. With the distances people have to drive to do large scale shopping around here, often in excess of 50 to 100 miles, having a large store like WalMart offers an incentive for many people to come here instead of driving a little further to a much larger town. Without WalMart, many of our other small stores would probably already be out of business, even if some of them don't realize it. Also, before Canada enacted their protectionist taxes, up to as much as 14% I believe, on materials purchased in the USA and taken across the border, many Canadians also came here to shop because we had more variety here. Much lower prices on cigarettes and alcohol as well. Now they stay home rather than being punished for looking for a better price on things they want. However, I have also seen that much of their home town rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. We don't seem to get much cooperation from WalMart when looking for assistance in local charity activities. While those demonized oil companies and related industries, like Halliburton, freely donate thousands of dollars per year to local charity causes, WalMart seems hard pressed to offer a toaster as a donation. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Wal-mart as a tight-wad? How unsurprising - Ol sam didn't strike me as the real generous kind. Gigantic stores are all about reduction of choices. Less choice in any sort of good to purchase, less choice in where to work, less choice in the very architecture of commerce. In all things, less variety is more mal. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| "Tokenism" is right. I prefer localized concerns, but if we're going to have chain stores, might as well sell everything through Wal-Mart and thus use less land and resources. Problem is, as I see it, that unchecked, most people will buy unnecessary tons of plastic and throw it into the garbage within a year, so maybe we need a less "freedom"-oriented society. |
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| How about a more educated society in the sense of plain basics and the neccessities of life. Clean water and clean food, shelter and everything else should fall into place. Priorities are all relative to the moment. Walmart would have to provide clean water and organic food with out the use of plastic touching the food for me to want to go inside it. It would have to carry organic fabrics with non toxic dyes, candy that had no artifical dyes, preservatives, residues from fumigations and interior spraying for insects and rodents would have to be non toxic methods. Lightening fixtures would have to feel more cheerful to me, cosmetics and perfumes should be all free of any chemicals or combinations which may cause ill health with using it or from long term use. If walmart was health conscience...I would want to actually work there! But it is so far from holistic like motivations that I doubt in my life time if I would ever want to go there unless to study human behavior and its addiction to plastic and junk food. |
RE: Tokenism
| | |
| Here's an example of what 1 (figuartive)hand is doing, while everyone's watching the other....... |
Here is a link that might be useful: WalMart @ Anclote
RE: Wal-Mart to spend 35 million on habitat restoration.
| | |
| Too bad they can't take that money and provide a living wage and health insurance for their employees. |
|
|
|
|
