Wal-Mart May Remove 9 Million Plastic Bags from the Waste Stream - Big Whoop
I’m in a foul mood today, people. The government is in talks to give away 700 billion dollars to companies who have proven to be irresponsible with money. The entire blogosphere is whining about Senator McCain being in Washington trying to do a job he was elected to do instead of being at a debate that could easily be pushed back a week. I would expect every official who the people have elected to do a job to be on that job in a crisis of this magnitude. I’m usually pretty easy going, but this has just set me off.
And so today when I read about Wal-Mart saying it will “potentially” cut its plastic bag usage by 1/3 by the year 2013, where I might normally say “good for them,” I’m saying, “big deal.” You might cut your plastic bag usage by 1/3 in five years. Big whoop.
- » See also: Are Large, For-Profit Corporations Intrinsically Less Ethical?
- » Get Sustainablog by RSS or sign up by email.
There are so many problems that are difficult to fix when it comes to the enviroment. But the whole plastic bag problem is really not that hard to fix. Stores can just stop using them like Whole Foods has. Or, if you feel you must offer them to your customers, charge them for the bags. Just ask Ikea. When they started charging for plastic bags, people found they didn’t need them so much.
I know that Wal-mart is making some impressive strides towards being more sustainable. I understand that they are only stocking their shelves with concentrated laundry detergent which is more environmentally friendly because it uses less water and less packaging. I know that they have placed green roofs on some of their stores. Those things are to be commended. But this possible 1/3 reduction in plastic bags just seems like placing a bandaid on a severed limb. A good intention but just not good enough.
What do you think? Do you think this is impressive? Or are you all cranky like me today and saying, “Big Whoop?”
Image courtesy of flickr
I’m in the cranky camp today, also. Big whoop, indeed. But you know what makes me angrier? The grocery stores who have started using thinner, flimsier plastic bags. I carry re-usable bags, but we all occasionally forget, and when I do, they just DOUBLE bag things anyway. Argh.
Ya, the double bagging thing gets me, too. Or when I ask for paper ONLY please, and the paper bag gets stuck inside a plastic bag.
I think the cashiers are so automatic with their actions that they don’t even always realize they are doing it.
Dish out that funk, Robin. I am with you on this, too. While I think corporations like Wal-Mart are crucial partners for environmentalism, this sort of thing is just for saving face and greenwashing. As an English doctor, that “could” language is so atrociously fuzzy as to be worthless. Whatever Wal-Mart does or does not do, I wish they would not insult our intelligence. Now I feel even better about my boycott….
Thank you for this, Mean Green Robin.
By the year 1013?! I don’t see how they can reduce plastic bags in the past. If they can that is impressive and shouldn’t considered a “big whoop”.
Sure, this is just a drop in the bucket (if it even happens), but it is a move in the right direction. All anyone thinks about with high oil prices is gasoline, but all the plastic packaging and bags use huge amounts of oil to produce, and we can do without most of it. Paper based packaging is not only renewable, it is biodegradable and/or recyclable. Until we are willing to stop using plastic and other oil derivatives when other alternatives are available and encourage business to do the same, the oil issue will not go away.
Justin - Mean Green Robin is just about the best name anyone’s called me since my high school students dubbed me the “Shreevinator.”
The - Oops. Thanks for catching my typo. I’ve corrected it.
TKTT1 - True - it is a move in the right direction. It just seems that on this issue though, it would be easy for that move to be a giant leap instead of just a small step. Paper does seem a bit more responsible than plastic IF it is created, recycled and disposed of in a sustainable manner, but really reusable bags are the best bet.
I don’t doubt Walmart’s sincerity — after all, being green means being efficient. But let’s not give them any awards yet. This is a company whose stores take up more square mileage nationwide than the entire island of Manhattan. This is chain that will pave wetlands in a heartbeat for a new Supercenter. This is a company with thousands of polluting trucks. They don’t give a lick about the environment — so let’s reserve our praise for now.
I’m with you in spirit, but I’m not totally cranky about it (well, not the Wal-Mart part lol). When I think in sheer volume, 1/3 of the bags is still a heckuva lot of them considering how much business ol’ Wally World does in a day or a year. However, the “potentially” thing stands out. I’d be a lot more impressed if they said we WILL do this. *sigh*
Now about the blogosphere whining…you hit the nail on the heat with this line:
“I would expect every official who the people have elected to do a job to be on that job in a crisis of this magnitude.”
YOU SAID IT!
Lakeview - Have they actually paved wetlands or are you just not putting it past them?
My first thought when I read your comment was, “If you build it, they will come.” We can say all we want to about their practices and irresponsible behavior, but the fact is millions of people flock to their stores. They certainly need to change many of their practices but the American consumer needs to change their shopping habits, also. We need to be willing to pay a little more for items from local shops instead of big box stores. We’ve had the mindset for so long to get “the most bang for our buck” that we insist that getting the lowest price on an item is the most bang. Quality and supporting local business have somehow become less important than low, low, prices. This isn’t just a Wal-Mart thing. It’s an American thing.
Melonie - I’ve been waiting for someone to comment on that. I’ve always been amazed that our elected officials can basically ignore their paying job while they are running for another office. It’s not just presidential candidates - it seems to be all elected Washington officials. Why do they get to do that? Why don’t they have to step down from their current position if they are going to be putting all their time into basically what is the equivalent of a job search for the rest of us.
When I was teaching full time I could have never told my superintendent, “hey, I’m going to try to get a more prestigious job. I’ll be absent from school 90% of the time. Just send my paycheck to my house because I won’t be there to collect it.”