[image from Mother Jones]
You’ve heard ’bout how the big corps are going green. Walmart and bp’re working really hard to make this list; Starbucks has been working to stay on it since forever.
You hear that big corps care ’bout cleaning up the environment. Now, Bill McKibben gives you (in Mother Jones) a convincing reason why not to believe that line: “Any sign that corporations might be willing to take on the job is greeted with an enthusiasm that borders on delusion.”
And Bill provides some good data to prove his point. Take bp, for ex. After making a grand pro-enviro speech back in 1997, the former British Petroleum’s “gone beyond petroleum to the tune of about one-sixth of 1 percent of sales” in 2004.
Consider also that the bp Alaska pipeline that was shut down last summer first raised eyebrows back in 1992, that bp’s top US exec co-chaired Bush’s reelection campaign in Alaska, and that “investigators are trying to figure out if BP gamed gasoline prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange.”
And on Walmart, sez Bill:
It makes scant difference whether Wal-Mart starts stocking organic food or not, because the real problem is the imperative to ship products all over the world, sell them in vast, downtown-destroying complexes, and push prices so low that neither workers nor responsible suppliers can prosper.
Bill then goes on to recommend that, instead of looking to biz to change its own rules to do the right thing, work to change the laws to force business to play its part in doing good.
Thanks to fair trade coffee news, via which I found the article. That blog sez it won’t even buy fair trade coffee from Nestle, Walmart, or Starbucks:
Why support small coffee farmers by buying fair trade coffee from Wal-Mart when the company now has over 870 stores in Mexico, causing untold damage to local small businesses?
What would the Wal-Mart flyer say…”Buy here - Support a small coffee farmer and close a local business”?
Find your local fair trade cafes here, and your local fair trade roaster here. And check out their overall commitment before becoming a regular. Here’s my 6-step guide to becoming a green coffee drinker on Treehugger :)
and push prices so low that neither workers nor responsible suppliers can prosper. But the people who buy these products are poor working people as well. The reason that they bu in Walmart is because that is what is the best for them. They can not afford to buy local/organic food as it simply too expensive. Shutting the likes of Walmart would only make poor people less well off.
Corporation are going to be green if people are green. The reason that they produce hybrid cars is because people want hybrid cars. The problem is not with the corporation they will do what ever sells. It is the people who buy from the corporations that need to change, that need to start looking for fair trade/organic/eco produce. Because when they do. Corporations will follow
Comment by simon — November 25, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Oh c’mon simon — This argument’s even more cursory and less-thought-out than the rebuttal against fair trade you made way back when (which I’d like to think you’ve changed your mind on, at least somewhat?). Let’s just take the “what about the poor working people” argument. If Walmart was simply giving “poor working people” what they want, why does Walmart spend so much money on advertising, in order to convince “poor working people” that cheap lawn chairs that’ll break if you knock ‘em over are a good financial deal, that shirts that shrink and change color after a wash are sound financial investments?
My point is that often, big corps like Walmart (and say, McDonalds, etc. etc.) prey on less-well-educated, less-wealthy people to make quick choices that seem cheaper today but that cost much, much more in the long term. And there are other arguments to be made here, but I’ll stop for now.
Comment by Siel — November 25, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Well we don’t have any Walmarts over here so I can’t comment on the quality of their lawn furniture. However firstly.
prey on less-well-educated, less-wealthy people
Just because you are less educated does not mean that you are more stupid and more likely to fall pray to advertising. It is not the poor that fall for the latest gimmick advertising. Indeed it is often the total opposite is the case. Ask a poor person the price of a loaf of bread and they will tell you. Do you know the price of a loaf of bread? They know because they have to know. They have to account for every single cent. That is why they shop in Walmart they have not got the luxury of buying expensive food. Indeed many of them don’t have lawns to put chairs into so really chairs are not the problem.
It might be easy for you to say that they should buy the dearer product because it is better in the long run. But the reason they don’t is they simply can’t buy the dearer product. They don’t have the cash in their hand to buy the dearer product even if it is cheaper long term. They have so many outgoings they don’t have the ability that you have to save. they are living week to week.
The reason they eat in McDonald’s is because that is all they can afford to eat.
Here is a test for you if you are interested. Try living on minimum wage for a month. Without digging into your savings. You will soon find out why they shop in Walmart and do not buy local/organic stuff.
Comment by simon — November 26, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Dude, I lived on less than min wage growing up. Still, I contend that it’s not necessary to announce one’s “poor creds” before being able to make an informed argument about the way Walmart and fast food companies prey on less-wealthy people.
I agree fully that the problem’s wider than JUST the corps we’re talking about. Often, the government’s complicit in the scenarios we have today. However, I really believe this is often in large part an effect of the lobbies of these types of companies — corps lobbying against raising the min wage, against providing health care for more people, against requiring better standards in food quality and safety, for subsidies for less desirable food commodities (soybeans and corn), for continued oil subsidies. This is not to say that politicians shouldn’t do more than just cave in to industry demands. But it doesn’t absolve the corps of blame, and it certainly doesn’t transfer that blame squarely on the shoulders of the consumers — especially our financially underprivileged ones.
Comment by Siel — November 26, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
I thought I replied to this earlier? I had various stuff in that post. Including my “poor creds” and a link about Walmart lobbing for increased minimum wage. http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
Corps are going to do what is nesscary to make profit. What makes them profit is providing the service that people want and consume. For instance if consumers wanted hi-brid low emissions then they would producec that but Americans want gas guzzlers. So they make hummers. The same principle transcends the either market.
I could say more but I have to go to the cinema.
Comment by simon — November 27, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Sorry by the way if the tone got a bit touchy. I got a death threat the other day on a bulliten board. So a bit quick to anger on the internet. Sorry about that. Just imagine the above exchange in a nicer way,
Comment by simon — November 28, 2006 @ 1:46 am
simon — I wonder if you actually read the article you linked us to?
“Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Watch, a group that’s been highly critical of the retailer, said Scott’s comments on raising minimum wage were “laughable and out of left field.”
“I find it disingenuous and laughable that Lee Scott makes these remarks while the company hires lobbyist such as Lee Culpepper who oppose raising the minimum wage,” Sefl said.
“We would be the first to applaud real change. But when a comment on raising minimum wage is dashed off and it flies in the face of Wal-Mart’s own corporate stance, that’s laughable,” she added.”
You might also find Who Killed the Electric Car. Yes, consumers certainly shoulder some of the blame — but a lot of the blame falls on the auto and oil companies for resisting the pressure to change and become more eco friendly — even when consumers were asking for EVs.
Comment by Siel — December 6, 2006 @ 9:26 am