Wal-mart hires environmentalist

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 13 2007, 06:51 AM) [snapback]511878[/snapback]</div>

You are right and wrong. A truly capolitistic system, which acknowledges the need for a healthy environment, (or else its consumers would die or its resources would depleat thus hurting business) is I believe superior to a communistic or socialist system as a capitolistic systeme actualy puts more real power in the consumers hands. Just looking at the ecological disasters in the former Soviet Union. (of course this isn't to say that all corporations act responsibly, just that they are more accountable and able to be affected by the people than is a large buearocratic government.)

Unfortunately the eco-economists you site above are the vocal, shall we say pains in the asses, that we always hear about in the news. And the pains in the asses are not espousing the eco-conomist ideals of those you site above.

So, you are right and unfortunately you are wrong, at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 13 2007, 06:51 AM) [snapback]511878[/snapback]</div>

You are right and wrong. A truly capolitistic system, which acknowledges the need for a healthy environment, (or else its consumers would die or its resources would depleat thus hurting business) is I believe superior to a communistic or socialist system as a capitolistic systeme actualy puts more real power in the consumers hands. Just looking at the ecological disasters in the former Soviet Union. (of course this isn't to say that all corporations act responsibly, just that they are more accountable and able to be affected by the people than is a large buearocratic government.)

Unfortunately the eco-economists you site above are the vocal, shall we say pains in the asses, that we always hear about in the news. And the pains in the asses are not espousing the eco-conomist ideals of those you site above.

So, you are right and unfortunately you are wrong, at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 12 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]511470[/snapback]</div>

I hate WalMart for a couple of reasons:
1) Their exploitation of their 'associates', by denying OT, health care, or reasonable wages (do a google search on the court cases WM has lost concerning these issues). This goes along with them hiring 'marginal' employees -- undereducated, immigrants (legal or not), and older workers, to minimize the risk of facing lawsuits from people who are better informed on their rights.
2) Their heavy-handed pressure on their suppliers to continuously lower prices, which forces the suppliers (if they wish to continue to do business) to cut corners, mistreat their employees, and use shoddier and shoddier materials.
3) Their product quality continues to decline, as they use more and more foreign suppliers, who in turn are using environmentally harmful processes.

I do not shop WalMart. Ever.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 12 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]511470[/snapback]</div>

I hate WalMart for a couple of reasons:
1) Their exploitation of their 'associates', by denying OT, health care, or reasonable wages (do a google search on the court cases WM has lost concerning these issues). This goes along with them hiring 'marginal' employees -- undereducated, immigrants (legal or not), and older workers, to minimize the risk of facing lawsuits from people who are better informed on their rights.
2) Their heavy-handed pressure on their suppliers to continuously lower prices, which forces the suppliers (if they wish to continue to do business) to cut corners, mistreat their employees, and use shoddier and shoddier materials.
3) Their product quality continues to decline, as they use more and more foreign suppliers, who in turn are using environmentally harmful processes.

I do not shop WalMart. Ever.

 

As Einstein said, we cannot solve our problems from the level of thinking they were created. Capitalism is based on flawed assumptions (ie: we are separate from and above nature, we have a right to use use up resources wisely, future generations are worthless via the discount rate, etc). To become sustainable, we need higher level thinking -- systems thinking. I advise Wal-Mart and other firms on sustainability and system change. My work is shown on www.GlobalSystemChange.com.

From a higher level, we see that any system that violates the laws of nature, such as ours, will inevitably collapse. To avoid catestrophic changes, we must begin to focus on what will come after Capitalism, or how we can massively improve capitalism. Many experts have discussed this over the years, such as EF Schumacher back in 1973 with Small is Beautiful. But little has happened. A major reason for this is that we haven't made the business case for system change and shown business how they can get involved. Business is neutral. It does what it's incentivized to do. Current system demand that business put profits ahead of children/the environment/all of society/etc. The enemy isn't Wal-Mart or any other firm. It's the systems that demand unsustainable behavior. Firms can eliminate some of their impacts on their own. And they should. However, probably 80% or more of negative corporate impacts cannot be eliminated without system change. Business effectively is the most powerful force on the planet. If business doesn't work for system change, it won't happen voluntarily. Instead systems will collapse, which of course will hurt business. Self interest demands that business lead the way on system change.

I oversaw the sustainability analysis of the world's 2,000 largest companies for many years for the largest firm in the world doing such research. From this perspective, I can say Wal-Mart is implementing one of the most proactive sustainability strategies ever.

Over time, as systems and incentives change, companies will change. The question is, how do we make this work happen. Practicality is the key. Much more is said about this on www.GlobalSystemChange.com

 

As Einstein said, we cannot solve our problems from the level of thinking they were created. Capitalism is based on flawed assumptions (ie: we are separate from and above nature, we have a right to use use up resources wisely, future generations are worthless via the discount rate, etc). To become sustainable, we need higher level thinking -- systems thinking. I advise Wal-Mart and other firms on sustainability and system change. My work is shown on www.GlobalSystemChange.com.

From a higher level, we see that any system that violates the laws of nature, such as ours, will inevitably collapse. To avoid catestrophic changes, we must begin to focus on what will come after Capitalism, or how we can massively improve capitalism. Many experts have discussed this over the years, such as EF Schumacher back in 1973 with Small is Beautiful. But little has happened. A major reason for this is that we haven't made the business case for system change and shown business how they can get involved. Business is neutral. It does what it's incentivized to do. Current system demand that business put profits ahead of children/the environment/all of society/etc. The enemy isn't Wal-Mart or any other firm. It's the systems that demand unsustainable behavior. Firms can eliminate some of their impacts on their own. And they should. However, probably 80% or more of negative corporate impacts cannot be eliminated without system change. Business effectively is the most powerful force on the planet. If business doesn't work for system change, it won't happen voluntarily. Instead systems will collapse, which of course will hurt business. Self interest demands that business lead the way on system change.

I oversaw the sustainability analysis of the world's 2,000 largest companies for many years for the largest firm in the world doing such research. From this perspective, I can say Wal-Mart is implementing one of the most proactive sustainability strategies ever.

Over time, as systems and incentives change, companies will change. The question is, how do we make this work happen. Practicality is the key. Much more is said about this on www.GlobalSystemChange.com

 

Well said, nyprius. I think that's great news, and hopefully it will be a momentum-changing impetus.

But how do we effect these systemic changes? The Corporate model - by definition - excludes actions that fail to maximise profit, and pervades all facets of our lives. Can we somehow change the definition of profit, to include all costs, long term? Is there any way we can equate prices with the all-too-real full costs, so that the market really works? How de we correct major accounting errors like 'liquidating our capital and calling it income', or reconcile the concept of limited liability with the realities of global responsibility? Where's the rub, when it's in our interest to change, yet maintain the status quo? I fear, in the end, our economic paradigm is neither creating nor preserving wealth, which is a paradox, indeed. And a problem.

Sorry, I'm rambling, and asking way too many questions. I'll go now, but if it's not too presumptuous of me, sir, I'd like to share with you one of my favourite phrases, which I hunch you might appreciate:
"Life is not an externality."

 

Well said, nyprius. I think that's great news, and hopefully it will be a momentum-changing impetus.

But how do we effect these systemic changes? The Corporate model - by definition - excludes actions that fail to maximise profit, and pervades all facets of our lives. Can we somehow change the definition of profit, to include all costs, long term? Is there any way we can equate prices with the all-too-real full costs, so that the market really works? How de we correct major accounting errors like 'liquidating our capital and calling it income', or reconcile the concept of limited liability with the realities of global responsibility? Where's the rub, when it's in our interest to change, yet maintain the status quo? I fear, in the end, our economic paradigm is neither creating nor preserving wealth, which is a paradox, indeed. And a problem.

Sorry, I'm rambling, and asking way too many questions. I'll go now, but if it's not too presumptuous of me, sir, I'd like to share with you one of my favourite phrases, which I hunch you might appreciate:
"Life is not an externality."

 

Getting rid of subsidies and paying for the real cost of things would be an excellent start.

 

I agree, these are deep and complex issues. I'm delighted to be able to discuss them with someone who speaks my language. Apparently, free-thinking left wing accountants are a rare breed, and 'daydreaming' is frowned upon at work. Despite my business degree, my favourite classes at University were philosophy of science, oceanography, and, surely the darkest of all arts, the theory of accounting. My day job involves giving people the financial information they need to make decisions, yet I'm beginning to seriously question the validity of what I'm doing. I'm encouraged that so many people are becoming more aware of the limitations of financial reporting, yet in many ways money still makes the world go 'round. I honestly believe most of us would do the right thing, if only we knew what it was.

I see many issues as being both systemic and personal. Collectively, we are literally consuming Earth, yet our individual actions seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Each of us makes purchasing decisions every day from our own narrow points of view, and the sum of our decisions drives the global economy. But our decisions fail to consider the big picture, and are being made with information that is incomplete, at best. Prices seem an inadequate measure of value, and bear little relation to costs. We need labels on everything, maybe shaped like a footprint, to tell us the item's effect on planetary health indicators like greenhouse gasses, biodiversity, and habitat loss. Knowing this, our shopping baskets would look very different, and so would the business world. If we can 'fix' capitalism one person at a time, and multiply it by six billion, I think we stand a better chance. Vive la revolution!

 

He will do more for the environment within WallMart than all the other hippies will in their home organic gardens.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 15 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]512904[/snapback]</div>

Hyo, this is brilliant! I think this will be easily adapted and utilized and welcomed by retailers like Whole Foods. We have independent reviews/audits for things like the supplements that we take, why not for things to lighten our load no the earth. I know that I would use this information when purchasing my products.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ 2007 09 14 22:57) [snapback]512904[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ 2007 09 15 07:37) [snapback]512988[/snapback]</div>

The Foodprint is born! Sounds llike a job for Greenpeace, but if Whole Foods in Chicago wants to start, I'm all for it. Add up all the financial and environmental costs of the crop, right down to the pesticides on the fields and the gas in the delivery truck, divide it by the pounds of yield, and stick the information where it counts - in front of the person making the decision. Green stickers for the best choices, amber for the more questionable items, and red for the stuff we really shouldn't be buying. We need to know the whole story of what's in our food and what it really costs. Our survival as individuals and as a species depends on it.

 

I wanted to respond to your latest post, too, nyprius, but my reply button seems to be having issues of its own this morning.

I think the cell analogy is apt. James Lovelock gave us the Gaia Hypothesis, and its image of Earth as a single cell. Other than sunshine, meteorites, and a few rocket parts, our home is pretty much a closed system. Individuals and corporations - legal beings without a conscience - tend to think of themselves as autonomous cells, and act accordingly. (I'm reminded of the old joke about which body part is the boss. ) This is changing, as you say, which is good. When 'survival of the fittest' is seen as a lesson in cooperation, not competition, we'll know we're making progress. In the long run, the environment IS the economy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 15 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]513033[/snapback]</div>

I love this idea. But it will be complicated as they destination of that item will need to be determined before the label is affixed. I.E. you'd have to know whether that item is being sold within 10 miles or across the country in order to determine the gas for the delivery truck.

I think we're going to have to adjust to more seasonable items again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ 2007 09 15 11:07) [snapback]513065[/snapback]</div>

No doubt, there are kinks to be ironed out. I was thinking the eco-stickers would be affixed locally, after taking transportation and seasonality into account. There will be casualties - pineapples in Inuvik and water from France, much as I like Perrier, are simply not sustainable. Despite the complexities, we should be able to summarise them with something that says 'yes', 'maybe', or 'no'. And the lobbying will be fierce, mostly from those with the most to lose, which is why I thought a major, independent group like Greenpeace or Sierra Club could best take it on. Do you think they read PriusChat? B)

 

FYI, this past spring in England, The Carbon Trust, an independent company funded by government, started a program to put carbon footprint labels on foods at their point of sale.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 15 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]513060[/snapback]</div>

I agree hyo silver, cooperation is the key to sustainability. Reality is the great teacher. It will surely show us which of our beliefs about life and human society are incorrect. Or we can wake up now and avoid the inevitable problems that will result from continuing to pretend our current ideas and systems could give us what we want.

Large scale change like we are discussing can almost only happen quickly. People often resist it until the end because change is scary. Look how quickly communism, slavery and other out of balance systems declined. During those times of change, people couldn't see what was coming next. But they finally reached a point where they knew the current reality was wrong. So they were willing to deal with the uncertainty involved in change. This is what we'll need to do. No one knows the full answers to these questions. Some of us have parts of the answers. But I think we'll figure it out somehow. I'm helping business to look at these issues in a practical way. By practical, I mean it must enhance competitive position and financial performance, or business won't get involved. This isn't an ethical issue. It's simply the way it is. As you said, over time, we'll probably redefine profits to be consistent with what's best for society, rather than be in conflict, as they increasingly are now.