Within the framework of how sustainability is defined there varying levels of concepts that can be applied to how people, communities, nations,a nd the world cooperates. A sustainability isssue that came to recent news is that which is noted in the article, Wal-Mart's Chairman Pulls a Long Supply Chain Toward Sustainability, by Colin Sullivan in the New Yok Times. We find a unique perspective of how a corporate firm is providing some resppnisble measure to issues of sustainability, that which is wide ranging and imapcts locally, and globally.
Of particular note is the measures it will be taking to ensure a higher efficiency methodolgy of business while being responsible to the environment, Sullivan highlights this, "...voluntary commitment to slash 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions from its global supply chain by the end of 2015," (Sullivan, 2010). Also within their plans are, as Sullivan states, "pledge to attain 100 percent of its power from renewable sources of energy and a promise to create zero waste," (Sullivan, 2010). Walmart is a gloabl market pressnece and for them to consider and assume responsible management of their ecological impact is innovative and provides a sense of leadership. By assuming this position and attaining these goals ineviatbly would create local and global reductions in pollutants and responsible energy uses.
The whole initiative at Walmart began when small projects to reduce waste and save energy at local Walamrts were effective. The issue grew and emeged as a corporate wide goal and a means to re-introduce the Walamart brand within the scope of global environmnetalism. Sullivan highlights the CEO Lee Scott's perspective, "He says Wal-Mart's new strategy is to link reducing waste -- whether that means trimming fuel use in its fleet of long haulers or using less plastic wrap -- with lower prices, a connection that works with the average consumer, in his view," (Sullivan, 2010).
Basically what we see happening will be local efforts by Walmart stores and it suppliers to provide economic and effcient ways to provide products by reducing packaging, reducing energy outputs, and creating viable waste resources. This will impact the environment on a grander scale because of the national and international scope Walmart possesses. This will create the opportunity for Walmart to feasibly continue to control the market share of its stake and allow it suppliers to flourish accordingly while creating a way to self coantin and be responsible for its impact on the environments and the communities it serves.
The issue here is to make the Walmart brand gain an environmental image, but it is acting within a responsible framework. In order to assess what corporation wants to do, it will obviuosly take time. I like the ideas it has proposed and they are very feasible. cutting back on waste and providng safer and efficient packaging can be incorporated immediatley. Where they will truly gain merit is if they can reduce enrgy and fuel comsumption, since they are a heavily truck fleet transporter. As far as reducing emmissions they will need to invest in efficent and newer technologies to make their stores emmitt less carbons , and also invest in enrgy saving trucks for their transports.
What I find truly interesting is the innovative approach and contrast to the essence of what we read in Robert Goodland's article, The Concept of Environmental Sustainability, "This paper offers the case that ES does not allow economic growth, muchless sustained economic growth. On the contrary, environmentally sustainable development implies sustainable levels of both production (sources), and consumption(sinks), rather than sustained economic growth" (Goodland, 1995, pp. 5). Walmart CEO seems to be hoping fo the opposite, that by becoming environmentally sound they will resource capitals and garner growth and economic profit. Sullivan describes the CEO'S vision, "Ultimately, Wal-Mart wants the suppliers to measure the environmental impact of their products and make the data available to consumers on store shelves --a bonanza for climate consultants, given how many suppliers are reached by the long arm of the world's dominant retailer. Scott says the layered effort is about using sustainability to lower costs, which he views as connected," (Sullivan, 2010).
I see the suggestion of, as Goodland describes, quantity versus quality in this issue (Goodland, 2010, pp.9). Walmart wants to not to continue growth by size and numbers, but in quality by becoming more efficient and environmenally smart in its approach to providing products. There seems to be a nature values coming into play and it does not seem to be a great cost for Walmart to shift its image. Goodland describes the folowing, "There is little admission yet that consumption above sufficiency is not an unmitigated good," (pp. 13). If I am interpreting this correctly, Walmart is progressing away from this type of trend, reduce, and supply more efficiently to create growth.
references:
Goodland, Robert (1995). The Concept of Environmental Sustainability.Annual Review Ecological Systems, 26, pp. 1-24. Retrieved from https://myasucourses.asu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_125080_1
Sullivan, Collin. (2010, April 14). Wal-Mart's Chairman Pulls a Long Supply Chain Toward Sustainability. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/14/14climatewire-wal-marts-chairman-pulls-a-long-supply-chain-93984.html
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
assignment 6
HR 672 Military Environmental Responsibility Act
To understand this bill, a good example is the case of water in Wisconsin. As reported by Elizabeth DiNovella, on her local news blog, rural Wisconsin has been impacted by over fifty years of water pollution from the local Badger Army Ammunitions Plant (Dinovella, 2009). According to citizens in the area, they know first hand that federal agencies have not lived up to environmental standards as they should have along this time frame, it is evident in their drinking waters, and groundwaters, which have shown high levels of carcinogenics and pollutants (Dinovella, 2009). The bill would aid the effort to enforce the local plant to reach compliance and maintain it. Local residents,in a letter to government, have research and Dinovella quotes them, "Unregulated military projects have placed countless communities, workers, soldiers, and families at increased risk for cancer and other deadly disease from exposure to military toxins–the hidden casualties here at home," (Dinovella, 2009). Furthermore, evidence shows, as Dinovella quotes local residents, "Independent reviews by the Government Accountability Office have shown that environmental compliance does NOT interfere with the military’s ability to do its job," (Dinovella, 2009). Thus, it seems like th epassage of this bill would aid the community, and help the plant reach compliance, while not creating an impact in their regular duties, a win-win situation.
1. H.R. 672 definitely has the potetial to set off a firestorm of value based
issues. It seems that a mjor economic investment the U.S makes year after year is in military funding. H.R. 672 may impact the way and or where financial resources are used, even how, because it focuses on making agencies in military roles cooperate with environmental guidelines. These agancies will have to decide critically on using their funding to clean up their programs, and reduce costs for their projects, and or continue to impact the environment while pursuing those projects as they are. If increased funds would be appropriated within this bill, it may aid the persuasion to comply, as the case in Wisconsin, since it would not impact the regular infrastructure or duties there within.
2. Currently H.R. 672 has not action pending. The political climate surrounding it is minimal. It is sponsored by Bob Filner from California. The bill is curerently within the committee for readiness, which has had it since February of 2009. Raul Grijalva from Arizona is one co-sponsor.
3. Within the scientific aspects of the bill,it only calls for the agencies to comply with the standards set in the environmental protection act of 1969. Thus it may seem a bit outdated with regards to curent technology and curent standards set for other environmental cocnerns such as emmission, energy, water,etc. I guess the central theme would address whether these agancies can at least meet some minimal environmnatal requirement, and continue their projects with an environmental mindset.
4. Policy design is not a major component of this bill, as it is only a requirement for agncies to meet compliance. The policy design was established in 1969 and any new policy measres would have to be introduced accordingly and through the appropriate measures. I guess within the defense agencies' projects only engineers and scientists could gauge the efficiency of the policy design and attest to its feasibility with any project. If it is a measure for the agency to produce decreasing pollutant levels, it may just be a case of design of the infrastructure and reporting compliance?
5. Management is key within this bill because you are dealing with major government agancies that have protocols of leadership and security measures that are highly complex and tightly monitored. It seems this will be a difficult realm to maneveur within and may be a major point of challenges to regulation of the proposed measures.
References
Dinovella, Elizabeth. (2009, June 5th). Fighting Militarism’s Toxic Legacy. Retreived from http://www.lizdinovella.com/?tag=hr-672
To understand this bill, a good example is the case of water in Wisconsin. As reported by Elizabeth DiNovella, on her local news blog, rural Wisconsin has been impacted by over fifty years of water pollution from the local Badger Army Ammunitions Plant (Dinovella, 2009). According to citizens in the area, they know first hand that federal agencies have not lived up to environmental standards as they should have along this time frame, it is evident in their drinking waters, and groundwaters, which have shown high levels of carcinogenics and pollutants (Dinovella, 2009). The bill would aid the effort to enforce the local plant to reach compliance and maintain it. Local residents,in a letter to government, have research and Dinovella quotes them, "Unregulated military projects have placed countless communities, workers, soldiers, and families at increased risk for cancer and other deadly disease from exposure to military toxins–the hidden casualties here at home," (Dinovella, 2009). Furthermore, evidence shows, as Dinovella quotes local residents, "Independent reviews by the Government Accountability Office have shown that environmental compliance does NOT interfere with the military’s ability to do its job," (Dinovella, 2009). Thus, it seems like th epassage of this bill would aid the community, and help the plant reach compliance, while not creating an impact in their regular duties, a win-win situation.
1. H.R. 672 definitely has the potetial to set off a firestorm of value based
issues. It seems that a mjor economic investment the U.S makes year after year is in military funding. H.R. 672 may impact the way and or where financial resources are used, even how, because it focuses on making agencies in military roles cooperate with environmental guidelines. These agancies will have to decide critically on using their funding to clean up their programs, and reduce costs for their projects, and or continue to impact the environment while pursuing those projects as they are. If increased funds would be appropriated within this bill, it may aid the persuasion to comply, as the case in Wisconsin, since it would not impact the regular infrastructure or duties there within.
2. Currently H.R. 672 has not action pending. The political climate surrounding it is minimal. It is sponsored by Bob Filner from California. The bill is curerently within the committee for readiness, which has had it since February of 2009. Raul Grijalva from Arizona is one co-sponsor.
3. Within the scientific aspects of the bill,it only calls for the agencies to comply with the standards set in the environmental protection act of 1969. Thus it may seem a bit outdated with regards to curent technology and curent standards set for other environmental cocnerns such as emmission, energy, water,etc. I guess the central theme would address whether these agancies can at least meet some minimal environmnatal requirement, and continue their projects with an environmental mindset.
4. Policy design is not a major component of this bill, as it is only a requirement for agncies to meet compliance. The policy design was established in 1969 and any new policy measres would have to be introduced accordingly and through the appropriate measures. I guess within the defense agencies' projects only engineers and scientists could gauge the efficiency of the policy design and attest to its feasibility with any project. If it is a measure for the agency to produce decreasing pollutant levels, it may just be a case of design of the infrastructure and reporting compliance?
5. Management is key within this bill because you are dealing with major government agancies that have protocols of leadership and security measures that are highly complex and tightly monitored. It seems this will be a difficult realm to maneveur within and may be a major point of challenges to regulation of the proposed measures.
References
Dinovella, Elizabeth. (2009, June 5th). Fighting Militarism’s Toxic Legacy. Retreived from http://www.lizdinovella.com/?tag=hr-672
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)