So, former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach is on the payroll of Wal-Mart as an environmental consultant, thus bolstering Wal-Mart's credibility as an emerging "green" company and also improving the company's PR. Well, I don't want Wal-Mart's image to improve and have its profit margins increase, to the detriment of small businesses and small towns. It's true that Werbach could make a huge environmental difference if he can change Wal-Mart's environmental practices on even just a small level, but what I think would be even better for the nation and the world is the dismantling of this corporation and its conquer-the-world business model. Now, I realize that Wal-Mart will probably always be a part of the world's "landscape", but it must be made more accountable for its steamroller approach to fiscal success.
First of all, Wal-Mart's way of doing business is bad for, well...business. Wal-Mart is a town-killer, selling merchandise at such low prices that small local businesses are forced to close. That hurts the local economy: the landlords lose the rent, the town loses the tax revenue, and ultimately may lose one of its most vital resources---its people (who may have to move out of town to find a new source of income). Part of a healthy "environment" is having a sense of community, a sense that there's something good and unique about your corner of the world and that you belong to this place. Wal-Mart robs towns of their uniqueness and, once other local independently-owned-small-business shopping options are eradicated, forces the town to become Wal-Mart shoppers. Hey---but where else could you go to buy a pound of chicken thighs, a pack of socks, a car battery, pick up a prescription, grab a bite to eat, and get the latest best selling novel, all in one stop? Are we so convenience-oriented as a country that we can't frequent a handful of local businesses to get what we need, instead of supporting a megacorporation whose dollars flow back to banks in Arkansas and don't stay in the local economy? How many pockets does Wal-Mart have to dip into until they're selling basically everything that every other store used to specialize in? I'm sorry, I don't want to shop at a place that sells both produce and firearms. Hell no!
Also, Wal-Mart abandons old stores (which are already huge) and builds Supercenters, sometimes just blocks away from its old stores. In fact, this practice just occurred in the town of Brockport, NY, which is about ten miles away from my town. Wal-Mart built a Supercenter about half a mile away from the old store, leaving behind a huge empty building, and also a dying plaza. There were other businesses in the old Wal-Mart plaza that have since closed down because there's no more traffic there. Now there's tons of traffic in another part of town where there used to be a forest! Ah, how quaint it is to see the "small town" facade that Wal-Mart has slapped on the front of their newest big box Supercenter instead of the trees that used to live in that space. Is the new Supercenter designed to absorb all of the carbon that those trees used to remove from the air we breathe? Also, if the Supercenter itself has a footprint of close to 200,000 square feet where trees used to be, just how large of a footprint does the parking lot have? So, we're now talking about a store with an overall footprint of what must be at least 500,000 square feet total. What size shoe is that?
Can Adam Werbach influence Wal-Mart to raze its old empty stores, plant trees in their place, maintain ownership of the said properties and maintain parks for the towns, or would that not be cost-effective? Can he influence them to cut down on their imports from China, thus reducing not only the trade deficit, but also potentially benefiting American manufacturers (who still mak
Source: Green-Sexy.com