"Evil" retailer to boost energy conservation?
How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World? One. And You're Looking At It. (Charles Fishman, Fast Company, via Brothers Judd)
Swirl bulbs don't just work, they pay for themselves. They use so little power compared with old reliable bulbs, a $3 swirl pays for itself in lower electric bills in about five months. Screw one in, turn it on, and it's not just lighting your living room, it's dropping quarters in your pocket. The advantages pile up in a way to almost make one giddy. Compact fluorescents, even in heavy use, last 5, 7, 10 years. Years. Install one on your 30th birthday; it may be around to help illuminate your 40th.
In an era when political leaders and companies are too fainthearted to ask Americans to sacrifice anything for the greater good, the modern ice-cream swirl bulb requires no sacrifice. Buying and using it helps save the world--and also saves the customer money--with no compromise on quality. Selflessness and self-satisfaction, twirled into a single $3 purchase.
So far, the impact of compact fluorescents has been trivial, for a simple reason: We haven't bought them. In our outdated experience, they don't work well and they cost too much. Last year, U.S. consumers spent about $1 billion to buy about 2 billion lightbulbs--5.5 million every day. Just 5%, 100 million, were compact fluorescents. First introduced on March 28, 1980, swirls remain a niche product, more curiosity than revolution.
But that's about to change. It will change before our very eyes. A year from now, chances are that you yourself will have installed a swirl or two, and will likely be quite happy with them. In the name of conservation and good corporate citizenship, not to mention economics, one unlikely company is about haul us to the lightbulb aisle, reeducate us, and sell us a swirl: Wal-Mart.
In the next 12 months, starting with a major push this month, Wal-Mart wants to sell every one of its regular customers--100 million in all--one swirl bulb. In the process, Wal-Mart wants to change energy consumption in the United States, and energy consciousness, too. It also aims to change its own reputation, to use swirls to make clear how seriously Wal-Mart takes its new positioning as an environmental activist.
It's a bold goal, a remarkable declaration of Wal-Mart's intention to modernize and green up a whole line of business using market oomph. Teaming up with General Electric, which owns about 60% of the residential lightbulb market in the United States, Wal-Mart wants to single-handedly double U.S. sales for CFLs in a year, and it wants demand to surge forward after that.
Many Democrats run against Wal-Mart, then wonder why flyover country continues to reject them.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is gearing up to boost energy conservation AND the environment in the United States, while making a buck or two in the process.
Genius.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/30/06 22:36 | Other | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
I think I mentioned in an earlier post that we invented the circular firing squad; this is a perfect example. I was pretty much unaware of the swirl bulbs. this is a brilliant strategy on their part. I'm going to start using them. I'm not going to uy them from Walmart, though.
In all fairness, though, their hiring practices are atrocious. I don't want to go through the whole litany, but one of the worst practices is hiring mostly part-time people so they don't have to pay any benefits and then giving them instructions about how to apply for public assistance. I'll admit to a lot of good things Walmart offers the economy, but they also do substantial damage to local economies as well, killing local businesses.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 08:49 on 08/31/06
they also do substantial damage to local economies as well, killing local businesses.
This is one of those areas where I think some members of the left just kill themselves.
I grew up in a very small town in OK. When a Wal-Mart store moved in, it was a godsend to the fairly poor community. Instead of paying outrageous prices for everything from underwear to seeds to soda to the local merchants or driving 40 miles to Bartlesville, you could just go to Wal-Mart. Yes, it drove some local merchants out of business, but other local merchants changed their focus and survived (instead of competing with Wal-Mart on underwear, for example, they sold higher-end Western wear and jeans that you couldn't get at Wal-Mart). That store also provided a lot of jobs for a community that needed them. I think on balance, most people were pretty happy to have the Wal-Mart.
There may well be plenty of corporate evils to complain about, but any political party that ignores how important Wal-Mart has been to non-urban communities in flyover country is really missing something that's important.
Posted by Kevin @ 08:59 on 08/31/06
I got in on the swirl bulbs pretty much at the start when they werepretty damn expensive.
I got around the cost by buying one at a time when an old bulb blew. I'd take the old-world bulb out of the most-used fixtures in the house, move that bulb to the place where the other one blew, then put the swirly in the more-used fixture (usually living room or kitchen).
And when we moved from our old house to our new one, I unscrewed all the swirlies, packed them up, and moved them too.
Now, they're cheaper. But the claims that they'll last seven years or so are kind of stretching it a bit.
Posted by Mr. Hutchison @ 09:20 on 08/31/06
Good link, Kevin. Great story.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 09:33 on 08/31/06
I'll admit that Wal-Mart has done some good things, has lowered prices, which is great for people with lower incomes, and has brought jobs to areas that have badly needed them. However, they have a long record of treating their employees horribly, and in spite of feel-good commercials, show no signs of improving that sorry record.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 14:30 on 08/31/06
but one of the worst practices is hiring mostly part-time people so they don't have to pay any benefits and then giving them instructions about how to apply for public assistance.
However, they have a long record of treating their employees horribly, and in spite of feel-good commercials, show no signs of improving that sorry record.
Riiiiight. And you can back this up from personal experience? Or are you getting your info from Wal-mart bashing websites?
A majority of employees at most Wal-mart stores are full-time, with access to full benefits -- a good set of benefits. The lowest starting wage at Wal-mart is not even close to minimum wage. The average hourly wage for a Wal-mart associate (non-management) is around $10.00.
Think about some of the people Wal-mart hires. Who do you think will hire these people (who often have NO job skills whatsoever) if Wal-mart doesn't hire them?
Do you hold the same (oh-so-tiresome) contempt for Target, Kohl's, JCP, Macy's, etc? Or just Wal-mart?
Posted by anne @ 17:22 on 08/31/06
Oh My Anne!!
Fantastic!! Wal-mart may not be perfect, but you are right. It certainly is too big to be the store it was with Mr. Sam, but there are reasons they are still number 1.
Posted by whilo @ 22:10 on 08/31/06
That precinct chair guy's response was pretty predictable. Democrats don't like trading of emissions credits either. Sure, it works wonderfully, but the idea that anyone might make *shudder* a profit, is just too much for these folks.
Posted by Tom Hanna @ 05:33 on 09/01/06
<A majority of employees at most Wal-mart stores are full-time, with access to full benefits -- a good set of benefits.>
Wal Mart cut's employment cost's as ruthlessly as it cuts deals with suppliers. ACCESS to full benefits at Wal Mart means very little for most of their employees, since they don't actually subsidize the benefits and most employees can't afford to purchase the optional benefits. The shift to part timers, long suspected, was documented in this internal memo.
http://www.nytimes.com/pack...
I use to work with nonprofits and getting the local Wal Mart (one of the most profitable in the nation) to give anything or even respond to your letter or phone call was almost impossible. There charitable giving program is among the poorest in corporate America. HEB, Pizza Hut and McDonald's would always at least return your phone call and see what they could do. Most of the time they would give.
Wal Mart gets the attention because it is America's #1 retailer and employer. If Wal Mart subsidizes health benefits to its employees, then the other retailers will probably follow and we take a big step forward in insuring the uninsured. You think Wal Mart moves as aggresively on its light bulb initiative if it isn't getting hammered by all these consumer groups and media reports? I doubt it.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 11:40 on 09/01/06
Odd, most current Wal-mart workers I know have good subsidized health insurance through Wal-mart..Plus OUR area Wal-marts give heavily to charities and a children's hospital in the state..
Employees are offered a very good stock plan and are able to work toward substantial bonuses... And Wal-mart has always offered profit sharing and shrink bonuses for employees.Our area Wal-marts also offer a few different scholarship programs for intelligent students who do mind working for them.We have always found our local Wal-marts to be very involved with the local charities and school programs..Perhaps, it is because they often match funds rather than just hand over cash, expecting organizations to help themselves. I think this is called working with the nonprofit groups..I have no problem with this..
I have been involved with several fundraisers while my spouse worked at Wal-mart..and 100% of what we collected or raised went to different local charities..you see employees had input what charity they wanted to help!
Again Wal-mart is not perfect and they are in business for profit. I, also, have no problem with this..They get attention because they are no#1, yes. but they also get a lot more attention when they make mistakes..I have no idea what nonprofit organizations they ignored.
I hate to admit I am a democrat here
I guess my views just do not fit anywhere?
..I offer no apologies. I do apologize for the length of this and any typos!
I guess my views just do not fit anywhere?
Posted by whilo @ 13:03 on 09/01/06
I hate to admit I am a democrat here.
I guess my views just do not fit anywhere?
Nah, mom, you're in the same boat as a lot of good moderate Democrats in middle America. Your agenda isn't at all the same as that of urban liberals, the Netroots, and the Reality-Based Community. And unlike many of them, you actually have some direct experience with Wal-Mart in flyover country!
But hey, what do YOU know with your experience? THEY have all the popular blogs that Howard Dean likes to read before screeching, don't ya know? ;)
Posted by Kevin @ 13:23 on 09/01/06
I have neither the time nor the inclination to search out websites bashing one company or another, and yes, I have experience in my family with Wal-Mart, so riiight, I can back it up. My cousin went to work at a Wal-Mart and decided to get the health care coverage. Yes, you have to opt in. It doesn't just come with that $10 an hour, and it's expensive. She had to get it, because she has 2 young kids. Well, after taxes and insurance, her salary was just about minimum wage. They then told her how to apply for AFDC to make up the difference. She was absolutely mortified. Luckily for her, there's family to help out; not everybody is so lucky, including county and state welfare rolls, I might add.
You chose to ignore the part in my post where I acknowledged the good things that Wal-Mart has done. I mentioned the jobs. I mentioned the lower prices. I'm not one of those "Wal-Mart is the root of all evil" people. If they have reversed their part-time to full-time ratio, then I stand corrected, but rest assured, at one time it was not so.
I'm no particular fan of any big box store, and I prefer to shop local, but yes, I do hold a special contempt for Wal-Mart. I'm a union member, and Wal-Mart is by far the nation's worst offender when it comes to violating workers' rights to organize. I stand by the general thrust of my original post. Their overall record of employee relations over the last 15-20 years is bad. Is it getting better? Maybe. The jury is still out.
Sorry you find my beliefs tiresome, but I'm glad I got an impassioned response anyway.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 14:19 on 09/01/06
Well, after taxes and insurance, her salary was just about minimum wage.
The minimum wage is determined PRE-tax, PRE-deduction.
It's still not clear to me why any company should be the low-cost insurance provider of choice for low-skill employees, but whatever. That's a different discussion.
I do hold a special contempt for Wal-Mart. I'm a union member,
Ah, okay. Well, at least you admit that your disdain for Wal-Mart is emotional and personal. :)
But, your disdain and that of so many urban liberals for the company really isn't shared throughout middle America, where Wal-Mart is valued by many people. The Democratic Party used to connect with those sorts of people on many more issues than it does today. That's a problem.
Posted by Kevin @ 14:28 on 09/01/06
Speaking for myself, I do not find your beliefs tiresome, never!
I do know that 29 to 30 hours at Wal-mart were considered full time. It would be hard to get much lower as I spend that much time there shopping most weeks..
I can remember several females complaining that Wal-mart gave them too many hours and it just messed up their welfare and food stamps...they simply could not work that many hours, some would call this double dipping? Regardless,perhaps enough of this helped them with the decision about your cousin..I still remember when a relative was in a local business and if she hired certain ones, the BIA or other programs would pay part of their wage..making her part of it very small.I was helping said relative, but no program helped to pay my wages..No one criticized anyone using these federal programs..Maybe I am just in another area?? Perhaps you do not have people there who use public assistance, WIC and others...we have a lot here...
I have mentioned I know Wal-mart is not perfect, but I have not noticed anyone forced to work there..this is America and they can leave Wal-mart to work elsewhere,no?
Posted by whilo @ 15:15 on 09/01/06
Emotional and personal? Guilty as charged. ;)
That being said, I think the dislike is more contained within the labor wing of the party; I really don't think it's all that widespread in the party as a whole. This is just a guess on my part, but are you getting this impression at least partly from reading blogs? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly curious.
Also, the whole urban liberals vs. middle America meme is a discussion I'd really like to have sometime. I promise I'll at least try and stay out of stump speech mode.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 15:58 on 09/02/06
That question was poorly phrased, and probably needs to actually be several question. To what degree is the [i]perceived[i] dislike of Wal-Mart among all Democrats driven by by blogs? Again, I'm not in the mainstream of the party on this. I get funny looks, I swear. It seems like the MSM has decided that the bloga, especially Kos, speak for the entire Democratic Party. This simply isn't so.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 07:36 on 09/03/06
Wonder how this article was influenced by blogs, if at all...
Why are Democrats picking on Wal-Mart?
URL: http://www.tulsaworld.com/E...
Synopsis of story:
It's not surprising that, as The New York Times reports, leading Democratic politicians have latched onto bashing Wal-Mart as a 'new rallying cry' that 'could prove powerful in the midterm elections and in 2008.'
Posted by whilo @ 11:31 on 09/03/06
That almost kind of proves my point. Except for a few folks with a specific vested interest (i.e. union folks like me), people like Wal-Mart, the vast majority of Democrats included. I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I have to disagree; except for some of the most liberal like Russ Feingold (I admittedly haven't researched this thoroughly), not all Democratic politicians are on the bashing Wal-mart bandwagon, especially the farther you get from Washington. With the possible exception of David Van Os, and I doubt it about him, I can't think of a single candidate in Texas running against Wal-Mart. It's simply bad politics.
Was the article influenced the blogs? Hard to say. Certainly not overtly. It says leading Democrats (plural) but only lists one, Joe Biden. The blogs would lead you to believe that there's some huge groundswell against Wal-Mart. But there's there's no evidence to support that claim. But then the article goes on to call those politicians wishy-washy, their solutions dumb, and their criticisms shallow and undesirable. Darned liberable media.
For the record, I'm so sick of Joe Biden I could just throw up. He was on Meet the Press or This Week or one of those shows this morning for, I don't know, the 112th week in a row. I'll bet Joe's influenced by the blogs. Joe's influenced by the last thing he heard that somebody told him was important. When somebody points out that article to him and he finds out that 85% of Americans shop at Wal-Mart, he'll start backing off.
This brings me back full circle to my original post and my comment about our tendency toward the circular firing squad. We should just drop this foolishness. Shoot, I'll pipe down if they'll just let union organizers in and stop intimidating their workers about unions
Posted by another precinct chair @ 15:53 on 09/03/06
I don't think it's just liberal bloggers blasting on Wal-Mart.
It's not that hard to look in the news, and see some Dem pol blasting on Wal-Mart. Now, they don't do it so much in rural Wal-Mart country because they know that's a recipe for defeat, and that's certainly true in Texas (aside from Austin, perhaps). But they certainly do it elsewhere. Quite recently, they did so over the objections of one of their most sensible pols, Mayor Daley of Chicago. They can disguise their anti-walmart legislation however they want (living wage, woo!), but it's anti-walmart legislation likely to hurt Chicago, as Mayor Daley has pointed out.
Unfortunately, Daley doesn't seem to be in the mainstream of his party. I doubt Bill Clinton would be either, these days. That's a bad turn for the party, in my view.
Posted by Kevin @ 16:05 on 09/03/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.