Remember back in August when we wrote about Wal-Mart’s lobbying effort against carbon offset guidelines? It got picked up on a handful of blogs, and started a lively internet discussion about Wal-Mart, the “green” image the company so strongly lusts after, and the (real) global fight to reduce carbon output.

The discussion continues.

The Christian Science Monitor (who blogged about the carbon-offsets issue) today tells us how Wal-Mart is firmly opposed to any sort of required carbon footprint labeling. Here’s the spin Wal-Mart peddled to CSM:

“As for carbon-labeling, Wal-Mart’s senior vice president of sustainability, Matt Kistler, says that he doubted existing methodologies and the Wal-Mart customer’s ability to relate carbon with consumer merchandise.

“I’m not sure the consumer will ever make a purchase based on the carbon footprint,” he says, “especially the mass consumer.”

To respond:

1. How then is Wal-Mart planning to measure the carbon footprint of its suppliers at all? Remember that Wal-Mart just spent weeks puffing out its chest about how it was going to force foreign suppliers to decrease their footprints. And furthermore, Wal-Mart has shown that it’s willing to squeeze its foreign supplier every chance it gets, whether its over RFID technology, sustainability - or just good old fashioned price. Does anyone really believe that carbon footprint can’t be measured, and that Wal-Mart couldn’t or wouldn’t mandate carbon labeling if it felt it would help the bottom line?

2. Customers won’t be able to understand? How about this: a lower number is better than a higher number. I think we can all agree that EVERY SINGLE Wal-Mart shopper could understand what that means, whether or not they are concerned by it. To insinuate otherwise is insulting to the 70% + of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart. According to CSM, “In Britain, carbon footprinting – used initially to broadly measure environmental impact across a company’s entire operations – is morphing into an eco-labeling tool.” Maybe Mr. Kistler just thinks that the British are smarter than Americans?

Five years ago this story wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. But Wal-Mart’s PR team just got headlines in virtually every major American news outlet for holding a “sustainability summit” in China and supposedly telling its Asian suppliers to get green and get ethical. There was no mention anywhere (that we saw) of mandated carbon labeling on products, so kudos to the Christian Science Monitor for pressing Wal-Mart a little on the issue. Now it’s up to us and other enviro blogs to ring the bell a little louder.

Why doesn’t Wal-Mart want to mandate carbon labeling? Maybe because showing the real footprint of each store’s 100,000+ imported products would take a major dent out of the company’s effort to look soft, friendly and green. Wal-Mart doesn’t want to show you the energy that goes into, and the carbon that comes out of, every dollar it makes - because it’s not pretty. And until the company proves otherwise, we can assume those numbers are headed up - not down.

The heart of the sustainability problem with Wal-Mart’s supply chain is simple: it’s on the other side of the world.

It’s not that Wal-Mart is the only retailer that sources from Asia - far from it. It’s not that steps can’t be taken to make its foreign suppliers more sustainable - they can and should (and hopefully will). It’s that Wal-Mart is determined to earn a “green” image, while at the same time keeping the exact same business model: huge superstores on the highway that stock cheap foreign imports that were shipped on a tanker across the pacific, and then in a truck across the country.

The bottom line: shipping a 19 cent tube sock from Shanghai to Syracuse will never, ever, be “green” - despite what pretty logos are on the package, and whatever ethical or environmental improvements the factory might make.

Are you ready to go on a carbon diet? [Christian Science Monitor]:

In Britain, carbon footprinting – used initially to broadly measure environmental impact across a company’s entire operations – is morphing into an eco-labeling tool.

Earlier this year, the British supermarket chain Tesco began labeling some of its 70,000 products to reflect the carbon released in the their production, transport, and consumption. The 3,729 store behemoth, the world’s fourth-largest retailer, now has 20 carbon-labeled items on its shelves, core items such as orange juice and laundry detergent.

Read the rest of this story ...

There’s still way too many bloggers talking about last week’s Wall Street Journal story for us to give an accurate run down of all of them. But that’s not the only thing going on in the world of Wal-Mart this week: our Friday Blog Round-Up has the details.

WAL-MART RECOMMENDS LEAVING CARBON OFFSET DETAILS “VAGUE”
We caught a post earlier this week from Sustainable Industries, which mentioned that Wal-Mart has come out against defining carbon offset standards. Given the company’s desperate attempts to be seen as environmentally friendly, we found this a bit shocking, and we weren’t the only ones…

To Everything: Term, Term, Term [Grist]

In comments to the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year, Wal-Mart asked the agency not to define the terms “carbon offsets” or “renewable energy certificates” in order to keep the terms flexible and to retain their “less tangible nature.”

Carbon Offsets: To Define or Not to Define? [Green Tech Media]

Wal-Mart has attracted plenty of attention for its environmental initiatives, including more energy-efficient lighting – the chain surpassed a goal to sell 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs in 2007 – less packaging and a goal of removing nonrenewable energy from all its products, although an Environmental Leader report released in May found that most consumers didn’t identify the company as socially responsible, in spite of its significant green marketing.

Why is Wal-Mart lobbying against carbon-offset guidelines? [Christian Science Monitor Bright Green Blog]

Wal-Mart has been taking many major steps go green in recent years. The mega-retailer has taken steps to assess the carbon footprint of some of its products, and it has become the largest buyer of organic cotton and of locally grown produce...So you can imagine my surprise when I came across Wal-Mart’s comment on the Federal Trade Commission’s attempts to standardize carbon offsets.

Walmart Against Setting of Carbon Offset Guidelines [Carbon Offsets Daily]

There seem to be loopholes in Walmart’s argument as well - it argues that the FTC should refrain from setting concrete offset guidelines as there is lack of “widespread consensus about the precise contours of what constitutes a carbon offset or a REC”. But isn’t that exactly what the FTC is looking to rectify?

My good deed for the day. [The Writing on the Wal]

The Christian Science Monitor has noticed that despite its vaunted green reputation Wal-Mart doesn’t want the government to formally define carbon offsets in order to facilitate pollution cap and trade programs. Confused? So is the guy who wrote the blog post...Therefore, he called Wal-Flack Central (aka the Wal-Mart Press Office) for clarification...Can you imagine what the Wal-Flack who took that call must have been thinking?

a) “At Wal-Mart, we are very concerned about…”
b) “At Wal-Mart, we do not comment on pending legislation…”
c) “Let me tell you about all our other wonderful environmental programs…”

After the jump, bad deals, jalapeno peppers and the Griswold family makes their mark on the American retail landscape.

Read the rest of this story ...

Curbing carbon emissions is a crucial part of environmentalism, but its an issue which Wal-Mart has been slow to address. In 2005, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott announced plans to reduce Wal-Mart’s massive carbon footprint, with the ultimate goal of carbon neutrality from the company. Carbon offset programs – methods of shifting the burden of carbon elimination to a third-party – were an imperative part of that plan.

To better implement these carbon offset programs – and to avoid misleading marketing claims about the process – the Federal Trade Commission began work standardizing offsets and regulating the process. Wal-Mart, however, had other ideas about the process.

Herein lays the scandal: Despite the company’s “green” initiatives, Wal-Mart is actively lobbying against the clarification of offset guidelines. The company’s hypocritical stance on the issue came to light last week in a hearing of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is attempting to modernize the “Green Guides,” guidelines issued for corporations defining acceptable marketing claims regarding environmental products and initiatives. In response to the FTC’s solicitation of retailer comment to guide the process, Wal-Mart’s Director of Energy Regulation, Angela Beehler, expressed Wal-Mart’s firm opposition towards the clarified scope and definition of carbon offsets:

Wal-Mart’s Comments to U.S. Federal Trade Commission (PDF)

Although some may urge otherwise, the Commission should resist the temptation to define what constitutes an eligible offset or REC. Doing so would require the Commission to resolve highly technical environmental debates that are beyond its expertise…

The Commission should recognize that in the absence of a governmental definition or a widespread consensus about the precise contours of what constitutes a carbon offset or a REC, there may be multiple ways to establish a reasonable basis for such claims.

Beehler’s words reveal Wal-Mart refuses to endorse even a proper definition of a “carbon offset,” and it follows that the corporation is uninterested in the transparency necessary to ensure the legitimacy of its environmental claims.

Wal-Mart’s attempt to keep offsets guidelines vague shows the company is more interested in marketing potential than actual environmental change. Unspecific standards would allow the retailer to ‘commit’ to carbon-neutrality, without providing much real documentation. A responsible, sustainable corporation would place the necessity of carbon-offset clarification and oversight in front of the bottom-line.

Read the rest of this story ...