Green Retailing Memo: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to Make Major Purchase of Renewable Wind-Power to Supply 15% of the Power For its 360 Stores in Texas, USA

As we wrote about in this piece yesterday, "Retail Memo: Wal-Mart CEO Steps Down; Head of International Operations Mike Duke to Lead Retail Giant; USA Chief Castro-Wright Promoted," current Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. CEO Lee Scott stepped down on Friday, deciding to retire after three decades with the world's largest corporation and global retailer, including serving in the top spot as CEO for the last nine years.

Scott isn't leaving Wal-Mart completely however; or right away: He will be head of the company's executive board and serve as a consultant to Duke and the board until 2011, according to the company.

Wal-Mart's head of global operations, Mike Duke, will take over as the company's CEO in February, 2009, Wal-Mart announced yesterday. In addition, current Wal-Mart USA CEO Eduardo Castro-Wright was promoted on Friday to the position of vice chairman of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which is a strong indication he is in line to be CEO as part of the retailer's internal succession planning process.

On Thursday we wrote about two major corporate social policy initiatives outgoing (nobody knew he was outgoing on Thursday by the way) CEO Lee Scott made and Wal-Mart announced that day. Those two major initiatives are:

>A $2.5 billion donation to Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest Food Bank), along with a promise by Wal-Mart to donate 90,000 pounds (70 million meals) each year to the group that supplies food to organizations assisting the hungry throughout the United States for the next couple years;

>Guaranteeing a $12.5 million letter of credit to the group planning to build a memorial to the late civil rights leader martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall in Washington DC USA.

Read our two stories from Thursday, November 20 at the links below:

~November 20, 2008: Food Retailing & Society Memo: Wal-Mart Steps in; Gives $12.5 Million Line of Credit to Group Trying to Secure Funding to Build King Memorial

~November 20, 2008: Food Retailing & Society Memo: Wal-Mart Donates $2.5 Million to 'Feeding America;' Will Also Give 90 Million Pounds of Food A Year to the Organization

Also on Thursday, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. announced it would make the single-largest purchase of renewable wind energy by any U.S. corporation.

Wal-Mart said it will buy enough wind power from Duke Energy Co. to supply up to 15% of the retailer's total energy load in approximately 360 Texas stores and other facilities. The renewable energy will come from a Duke Energy wind farm under construction in Notrees, Texas, and is expected to begin producing electricity for Wal-Mart by April of 2009.

The project will provide roughly 226 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of renewable power each year or the energy equivalent of washing 108 million loads of laundry -- enough for every household in Austin, Texas to do laundry for a year, the company said.

Texas currently is the leading wind power-producing state in the U.S. The new project by Duke Energy will solidify the state's position. Additionally, former oil barron T. Boone Pickens is planning a multi-billion dollar wind farm initiative, which would include major wind farms in Texas, as part of his "Pickens Plan" renewable energy initiative for the U.S.

One of Lee Scott's major initiatives during his nine years as head of Wal-Mart has been environmental sustainability. He's pushed suppliers to decrease product packaging sizes, launched "green" retailing initiatives across Wal-Mart's logistics system and stores, introduced "green" products under the retailer's store brands, pushed energy efficiency initiatives and numerous other programs that fall under the sustainability category.

It appears he wants to go out with a "green retailing" bang between now and when he leaves his CEO's office at the end of January, 2009.

Wal-Mart's wind power buy from Duke Energy is important in the larger, macro scale for wind power because its an endorsement in the U.S. of the renewable energy source by the nation's and world's largest corporation and retailer. The company's move will likely result in other corporations and retailers in Texas buying into the huge wind farm project being built by Duke Energy in the state.

A number of publications have written about Wal-Mart's major, new wind power initiative in Texas. Below is a sampling of those stories:

[CNN-Money: Wal-Mart To Buy Wind Power From Duke Energy For Texas Stores...Dallas, Morning News, Dallas, Texas: Wal-Mart buying power from wind farm...Associated Press: Wal-Mart buys wind energy supply...Wall Street Journal Business Blog: Wal-Mart: Wind Power’s Good for the Bottom Line, Even With Cheaper Gas ...Austin-American Statesman, Austin, Texas: Wal-Mart buying wind power for Texas stores...Houston Press, Houston, Texas: Wal-Mart Turns To Wind Power, A Little...

The Morning News-Arkansas: Wal-Mart Pushes Wind Power...Energy Matters, Australia: Wal-Mart Gets Into Wind Power...Clean Energy Update, New York, NY: Wal-Mart Makes Major Commitment to Renewable Wind Power...Environmental Leader: Wal-Mart To Buy 226 M kWh Wind Energy To Help Power 350+ Stores...Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. press release: Texas Wal-Marts go green with wind power.]

Our sources tell us CEO Lee Scott has a few more corporate social policy and environmental retailing surprises up his sleeve, which the company will announce before he turns over his CEO's office to Mike Duke at the end of January, 2009. If they are on the order of the three announcements we've written about -- all three announced by the company on Thursday, November 20 -- it should be an interesting remaining two months in 'Wal-Mart World.'

As the CEO of a $400,000 billion a year global corporation and retail empire, it appears Lee Scott, like a President or head of state does, also wants to leave a legacy. It appears he also wants to set a tone for the new, incoming CEO of a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that maintains its heavy involvement in corporate social programs and "green retailing" initiatives, both of which are needed even more strongly now in the current global recession and environmental and energy crisis than they were even before.

Green Memo: Greed in the Name of Green

Editor's Note: Green or environmental consumerism is one of the fastest-growing trends globally. It includes buying natural, organic, sustainable and locally-grown foods, for example.

Green consumers also are looking to shop at retailer's who conserve energy, offer "green" products for sale in their stores, and decrease their own carbon footprints as a business entity.

In terms of the products they buy, green consumers want goods that are 100% recyclable and made from recycled materials. Green shoppers also want energy efficient products, less packaging and other eco-friendly product attributes in the foods, grocery products, hard goods and other products they purchase.

Of course, green or environmental consumerism isn't without its challenges, conflicts and even contradictions. This also is true for grocery product manufacturers, marketers and retailers who are increasingly producing, marketing and selling "green" or sustainable products.

Like Kermit The Frog says: "It isn't easy being green."

Washington Post staff writer Monica Hesse has an article in today's addition of the publication in which she analyzes and discusses a number of aspects of green consumerism and the challenges and conflicts it poses. As our readers know, we don't often run pieces by others. However, we read Ms. Hesse's story early this morning and wanted to bring it to you, as we think it offers some interesting insights.

The article begins below. Then, to read the rest of it, just click on the link provided.

Greed In the Name Of Green
To Worshipers of Consumption: Spending Won't Save the Earth

By: Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Congregation of the church of the Holy Organic, let us buy.

Let us buy Anna Sova Luxury Organics Turkish towels, 900 grams per square meter, $58 apiece. Let us buy the eco-friendly 600-thread-count bed sheets, milled in Switzerland with U.S. cotton, $570 for queen-size.

Let us purge our closets of those sinful synthetics, purify ourselves in the flame of the soy candle at the altar of the immaculate Earth Weave rug, and let us buy, buy, buy until we are whipped into a beatific froth of free-range fulfillment.

And let us never consider the other organic option -- not buying -- because the new green consumer wants to consume, to be more celadon than emerald, in the right color family but muted, without all the hand-me-down baby clothes and out-of-date carpet.

There was a time, and it was pre-Al Gore, when buying organic meant eggs and tomatoes, Whole Foods and farmer's markets. But in the past two years, the word has seeped out of the supermarket and into the home store, into the vacation industry, into the Wal-Mart. Almost three-quarters of the U.S. population buys organic products at least occasionally; between 2005 and 2006 the sale of organic non-food items increased 26 percent, from $744 million to $938 million, according to the Organic Trade Association.

Green is the new black, carbon is the new kryptonite, blah blah blah. The privileged eco-friendly American realized long ago that SUVs were Death Stars; now we see that our gas-only Lexus is one, too. Best replace it with a 2008 LS 600 hybrid for $104,000 (it actually gets fewer miles per gallon than some traditional makes, but, see, it is a hybrid). Accessorize the interior with an organic Sherpa car seat cover for only $119.99.

Consuming until you're squeaky green. It feels so good. It looks so good. It feels so good to look so good, which is why conspicuousness is key.

These countertops are pressed paper. Have I shown you my recycled platinum engagement ring?

In the past two weeks, our inbox has runneth over with giddily organic products: There's the 100 percent Organic Solana Swaddle Wrap, designed to replace baby blankets we did not even know were evil. There's the Valentine's pitch, "Forget Red -- The color of love this season is Green!" It is advertising a water filter. There are the all-natural wasabi-covered goji berries, $30 for a snack six-pack, representing "a rare feat for wasabi."

There is the rebirth of Organic Style magazine, now only online but still as fashionable as ever, with a shopping section devoted to organic jewelry, organic pet bedding, organic garden decor, which apparently means more than "flowers" and "dirt."

Read the rest of Ms. Hesse's Washington Post piece 'Greed in the Name of Green,' here.

Editor's Addendum: Additionally, the Washington Post featured Leslie Garrette, the author of the popular book "The Virtuous Consumer" which is about the growing "green" or environmental consumer movement, in an online chat this afternoon.

Ms. Garrett discussed the challenges and conflicts people, businesses and organizations can face in trying to buy green, as well as in saving the environment. The Washington Post has a transcript of the online chat this afternoon here. The discussion offers some interesting consumer insight about green consumerism and related issues. We suggest you read Ms. Hesse's article first, then read the transcript from this afternoon's online chat over at the Washington Post.

The story by Ms. Hesse and the online discussion with Leslie Garrett are good consumer intelligence pieces for anybody in the food and grocery industry, as well as in business in general. They also should be of interest to all of us as citizens of our respective countries as well.

Note: The graphic at top is by Roger Chouinard.

Green Memo: Big Foot: How Big is the Food and Grocery Industy's Carbon Footprint?

A little more than a year ago, Sir Terry Leahy, who is the chief executive of the Tesco chain of supermarkets, Britain's largest retailer, delivered a speech to a group called the forum for the Future, about the implications of climate change.

Leahy had never before addressed the issue in public, but his remarks left little doubt that he recognized the magnitude of the problem. "I am not a scientist," he said. "but I listen when the scientists say that, if we fail to mitigate climate change, the environmental, social, and economic consequences will be stark and severe...There comes a moment when it is clear what you must do. I am determined that Tesco should be a leader in helping to create a low-carbon economy. In saying this, I do not underestimate the task. It is to take an economy to where human comfort, activity and growth are inextricably linked with emitting carbon and to transform it into one which can only thrive without depending on carbon. This is a monumental challenge. It requires a revolutional in technology and a revolution in thinking. We are going to have to rethink the way we live and work."

Above are the opening two paragraph's of an excellent feature article about global climate change, carbon foorprints, food miles and related environmental issues of significant importance to those in the food, grocery and allied industries, by writer Michael Spector in the newest addition of the New Yorker magazine, just out today.

Spector's piece focuses on what Tesco and other food and grocery companies are doing--and not doing--to reduce their respective carbon footprints. He also discusses the larger issue of the science and faith behind the global warming issue.

Tesco's Sir Terry is one of the leading proponents in the grocery industry for the concept of labeling grocery products with their carbon footprint. These labels would be similar to nutritional labels currently on packaged goods and other grocery products. The carbon label would tell consumers how many miles the ingredients in the packaged food product traveled, the amount of energy required to produce it, and similar points of information.

Tesco is currently in the process of funding a large-scale research project in the UK, designed to create a carbon footprint measuring protocol, as well as design the labels the retailer will use on all of its store branded food and grocery products in the near future. Tesco also is working with its major suppliers, telling them it expects them to carbon footprint label their branded products in the not too distant future if it wants to sell them in Tesco stores.

The interelated issues of global warming, carbon footprints and foot miles are significant and important ones for the food, grocery and related industries, including agriculture and transportation.

Spector's New Yorker piece, which isn't a short one, titled: "Big Foot: In measuring carbon emissions, it's easy to confuse morality and science," provides a good, thoughtful overview on the interelated subjects regardless of one's personal opinions. [Read the full article here.] We recommend the piece to our readers.

Green Memo Feature: Scientifc Evidence From the Lands and From The Oceans Suggests it's Time to Solve the Plastics Waste Issue

Scientists have recently discovered what they call a "plastic soup" of floating waste in the Pacific Ocean that is growing at an alarming rate, and currently covers an area twice the size of the continental United States. This massive, floating plastic garbage dump stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the California coast, across the northern Pacific, past the Hawaiin Islands and nearly as far as Japan.

American oceanographer Charles Moore was the first scientist to discover what he has named the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch." Moore estimates what he terms as this drifting "trash vortex" contains about 100 million tons of flotsam. Dr. Marcus Eriksen, a collegue of Moore's and director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which was founded by Dr. Moore, says the floating garbage dump is almost like a plastic soup. "It is vast and endless for an area that's about double the size of the continental United States, and is growing rapidly," Dr. Eriksen says.

According to Moore, Eriksen and other researchers, the drifting plastic garbage patch is composed of everything plastic, from shopping bags and plastic packaging, to things like Lego toys, laundry detergent bottles, footballs, empty water bottles, and most everything plastic that is disposed of outside of a landfill or not recycled. The scientists estimate about one-fifth of the plastic waste is thrown off ships or oil platforms, and that the rest--the vast majority--comes from the land and is washed out to sea.

Dr. Curtis Ebbesmeyer is another researcher who's been working on the buildup of plastics in the ocean issue for over a decade. He makes an analogy of the floating plastic "trash vortex" to a living organism. 'It moves around like a huge animal without a leash," he said at a recent conference on the issue. When the floating garbage patch comes close to land, "the garbage patch 'barfs,' and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic," he says. Dr. Ebbesmeyer and others have observed this "barfing" and the resulting beach being covered with shredded plastic waste on beaches in the Hawaiin archipalago.

Dr. David Karl, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii, says he is launching a major expedition later this year to further investigate and better document the origins of the floating plastic garbage patch. He says he thinks the garbage patch represents a new habitat and recently explained why.

According to Karl, historically, garbage that ends up in the ocean has already biodegraded. However, this is clearly not the case with the giant plastic flotsam. Rather, he suggests modern plastics are so durable that plastic items a half-century old have been found in the Pacific Ocean grabage patch. "Every piece of plastic manufactured in the last fifty years that has made its way into the ocean is still out there," Karl says.

Because the floating patch of plastic trash lies just under the surface of the ocean and is translucent, it can't be detected and viewed in satellite photographs, the researchers said. Rather, it can only be seen from the bows of ships, which is why the scientists have to go out to sea to study the flotsam.

The Pacific Ocean garbage patch has created a cottage industry of sorts. Aquatic garbage scavengers. Above, a scavenger paddles a canoe through the garbage vortex near a Manila waterway in the Philipines. (Courtesy: Getty Images.)

This massive and fast-growing floating plastic garbage dump at sea is posing many problems. For example, according to numerous independent researchers and the United Nations' Environmental Program, plastic debris in the ocean causes the death of at least a million seabirds each year, as well as more than 100,000 marine mammals. Researchers have found plastic grocery bags, plastic toothbrushes, disposable cigarette lighters and numerous other plastic items inside the stomachs of dead seabirds and marine mammals, who mistake the items for food and ingest them, causing their deaths.

There's agreement among scientists and oceanographic organizations who study the issue, that plastics make up about 90% of all trash floating in the world's oceans. In 2006, a study sponsored by the UN Environmental Program determined that every square mile of ocean contains about 46,000 pieces of floating plastic refuse.

This seaborn plastic garbage doesn't just cause death and health risks to seabirds and mammals, but to humans as well, according to the scientists. Dr. Erikson says it is well excepted that the fast-growing, floating vortex of plastic rubbish poses a risk to human health.

He explains that hundreds of tiny plastic pellets, called nurdles--which are the raw materials the plastic industry uses to make plastic items--are spilled or disposed of every year and work their way into the oceans. These pellets act as chemical sponges of sorts, attracting man-made chemicals such as hydrocarbons and the pesticide DDT to them. They then enter the food chain, he says. "What goes into the ocean goes into these animals (fish, seafood) and onto your dinner plate. It's just that simple," he says.

Our Analysis and Viewpoint: The Ecological Crisis, Plastics Legislation, Taxes and Outright Bans: What to Do?

The scientific evidence on how plastic refuse is affecting the oceans and killing marine birds and mammals, as well as posing human health risks is clear, based on the research of those scientists sited in this piece and many others. What else the waste might be doing in unknown at present, but being researched by ecologists, oceanographers and others.

This oceanic evidence adds to what we already know about the harmful environmental, potential health and economic effects that plastics not recycled or disposed of properly causes on land as well: litter, landfill issues, and the like.

Above is a photograph of 2 million plastic beverage bottles, which happens to be the amount Americans throw away every five minutes. (The photo is by Chris Jordan.)

Taken together--by land and by sea--it's obvious a solution has to be found to this growing crisis. This fact is being recognized in increasing frequency by countries, states, provinces and cities throughout the world. China, for example, has banned thin plastic shopping bags. Beginning in June retail stores in the wrld's most-populous country will no longer be able to use the bags to package customer purchases.

In the USA, cities like San Francisco and Oakland in California also have banned the use of plastic grocery bags by retailers with stores over 10,000 square feet. Currently, more than 50 cities in the U.S. are considering banning the use of plastic shopping bags at retail (prmarily food stores) in one form or another.

Some countries in Africa have banned plastic shopping bags as well. Using a different strategy, the government of South Africa has required manufacturers to make plastic shopping bags much thicker, thus being more durable and expensive, than they normally are. As a result of this law, inacted five years ago, the government says there's been a 90% reduction in use because the bags are so much more expensive.

The government of Australia has recieved agreement from 90% of that country's retailers to stop using plastic bags, and is considering banning them outright nationwide. The state of Victoria already has its own ban on plastic bags.

In the United Kingdom (UK), Parliment is currently debating a ban for most of metropolitan Britian. Vancouver, BC. has banned plastic carrier bags in the city, and there is legislation to do so nationwide making its way through the governmental process in Canada. Other Canadian cities aren't waiting; they're pushing through their own local bag bans.

Ireland has placed a 15-cents per-bag tax on shoppers if they want to have their goods packed in plastic bags. The Irish goverment says there's been a 75% -to- 95% drop in consumer use of the bags since the tax was initiated two years ago. Similarly, in Tawian, the government now requires all retail food stores, convenience stores and restaurants to charge customers extra (a tax) if they want plastic bags and plastic serving utensils. According to the government, this has resulted in a 69% drop in the use of the plastic items over the last six years. The tax went into affect in 2001-2002.

Other states in the U.S., such as California, New York and New Jersey, have taken a different legislative approach instead of new taxes or fees. Last year, California past a statewide law which requires all grocers with stores over a certain size to place plastic bag recycling bins in their stores, and to offer reusable shopping bags for sale in every store. New York and New Jersey recently passed similar legislation for their respective states. Cities in each of these states have the right to ban plastic bags completely however.

Food retailers are getting into the picture on their own as well. U.S.-based Whole Foods Market, Inc. recently announced it will stop using plastic grocery bags in all its stores in the U.S., Canada and the UK in June of this year. Whole Foods will offer only100% recyclable paper bags in its stores, as well as sell reusable grocery carrier bags. The grocer already gives shoppers a 5-cent per bag discount on their grocery purchases for every reusable bag they bring with them to the store, as do many other grocery retailers.

Trader Joe's, the popular U.S. specialty grocer with over 300 stores, doesn't offer plastic bags in its stores at all--never has. Instead it encourages shoppers to use reusable shopping bags, gives them a per-bag discount for doing so, and offers paper bags which it says are made from 100% post-consumer recycled paper.

Why all the focus on plastic shopping or grocery bags?

The reason plastic shopping or grocery bags have been the primary focus of legislation, taxes and outright bans throughout the world is because they are generally the most prevelant form of plastic litter or waste. They clog landfills, taking ages to biodegrade, are found all over the roadsides and elsewhere, and are one of the most common sources of that floating plastic refuse vortex described by the scientists at the top of this story.

Plastic shopping bags however are far from the only source of plastic clogging landfills, being thrown all over the roadsides, and clogging that floating plastic garbage dump in the Pacific Ocean. Legislating, taxing and banning the use of plastic shopping bags might be a good first step, but it's dealing with only a tiny fraction of the problem.

What to do?

What's needed in our view is a comprehensive, market-based and public policy-based effort to deal with the entire disposable plastic waste issue. This effort must invlove all stakeholders: consumers, retailers, product manufacturers who use plastics, plastics manufacturers, governments and non-governmental organization.

We believe countries, states, provinces and cities have the right to legislate, tax and ban the use of plastic bags and other plastic containers and materials. We essentially support much of what's being done on that front in fact.

However, we have a few problems with it to date. First, the scope of the focus is too narrow. As we said above, plastic shopping bags might be a good first step, but its just the tip of the iceberg.

Second, the legislation, taxes and bans are so piecemeal they will end-up causing much confusion in the long run. We don't know how this can be avoided as such piecemeal legislation is part of being a soveriegn government. And in countries like the U.S. and most of the Western world, which use some form of Federalism, states and cities and other localities have the right to make their own laws and create taxation policies within various national restrictions. Further, one can't expect a less-developed country to be able to enact the same type of laws as a developed and rich one.

Lastly, and most importantly, we want to see a mix of market-based incentives (carrots), increased environmental education, and disincentives (sticks) like taxes, legislation and outright bans when needed to address the entire plastic packaging and disposable waste issue.

Towards a comprehensive approach

What do we mean by a comprehensive approach, using a combination of market-based ideas and government public policy: taxes, legislation, bans, and the like?

First, a comprehensive approach is key. This includes governments, the private sector and citizens being onboard. And, of course, this will very from country-to-country. Totalitarian states like China can announce a ban on plastic bags in January, like they did, and say it will go into affect a mere six months later in June (which it will) without any objection. It's a bit harder--thankfully so--in more democratic countries.

We are far from having the answers to a problem as large as this. Nor do we even pretend to know the solution. However, what we do have are ideas, and a framework, which is the comprehensive carrot and stick approach we described above.

Below is our suggestions and basic overview of how such an approach to trying to solve the plastic waste issue and the associated health, ecological and economic problems that come with it might work.

First, it's a fact that if citizens were more responsible, recycled plastics regularly where it's available, didn't litter, and were more careful with their personal consumption, the issue would probably be at least onlyhalf as bad as it currently is. As such, any discussion of solving the problem we believe must start from the point of personal and indivual responsibility.

Left to their own devices however, we suspect it will take many decades or more for individuals to see the "green" light and become more environmentally responsible. We must say though that compared to let's say the 1980's, just 25 years ago, environmental responsibility among most consumers has increased dramatically. This has been largely because of environmental education programs created by various groups and governments and aimed at consumers. Over the last 10 years the private sector also has started to jump in and offer such education as well. It works. Not near 100% of course. But it has a positive effect over time.

Education: The first part of our comprehensive solution model then is a dramatic increase globally in environmental and ecological education as it relates to the use of plastics and its affect on the environment. This effort needs to be paid for by taxpayers, plastic companies, manufacturers who sell plastic goods, and the retailers who sell them. A joint effort, with all stakeholders buying in. What's needed is at least double the environmental educational efforts we see today.

Industry R&D Economic Incentive Package: The second part of this comprehensive blueprint involves government and the plastics industry. Governments in those countries that have plastics manufacturers should create a massive program, including tax incentives and other economic bonuses, with a mandate to the plastics industry to come up with more rapidly-biodegrading plastic bags, bottles, containers and the like.

This incentive package--say an initial five year program--comes with a stick: that if the plastic companies take the economic incentives but don't make progress, they will face further legislation, more taxes and other penalties. These are all coming anyway--so they would be wise to get onboard if such an incentive package comes there way.

Industry Efforts and Pressure: Product manufacturers must put more pressure on the plastics' industry to innovate better and faster, creating new plastics from plant-based products that biodegrade faster. Retailers in turn need to put more heat on their suppliers who use plastic packaging to create products--like concentrated laundry detergents for example--that reduce plastic in the packaging, and to even innovate new packaging that eliminates plastic completely.

Retailers also need to increasingly make policy decisions like Whole Foods' has on its self-banning of plastic bags, and like Wal-Mart is doing with its recently introduced packaging scorecard, which will eventually mandate that its suppliers use a minimum of 25% less plastic in their packages than they currently do, or else the retailer will not buy that particular item from the supplier. This policy process at retail--the place where the consumer and the retailer interact directly--not only will help eliminate much plastics waste in the short run, it also will have the long run result--if practiced by enough big retail chains--of making the plastics industry realize they better innovate and make changes or face serious sales losses.

For example, are disposable plates made out of plastic really a good thing? They are far too durable for just a single-use and then disposal. On the other hand, they don't hold up well in the dishwasher. How many people really wash them by hand (you can get multiple-uses that way). Probably zero. Paper plates, which can be recycled, and reusable plates, which can be washed by hand or go in the dishwasher and last for decades, are the way to go. Disposable plastic plates, which are sort of a mid-point between recyclable paper and reusable plates, are an example of what we feel is a superfluous product. Companies of course have the right to make the plastic disposable plates, but the demand is questionable.

Retailers also must increase the pressure on their suppliers to go back to the plastics industry and let them know that if they don't innovate at a much faster place they stand to loose business because the suppliers' customers, the retailers, are telling them they want source- reduction, rapid biodegradable plastics, and other innovations.

Consumer Power: Consumers must also get more skin in this game. They need to start voting more with their shopping dollars. Buying more products packaged minimally or alternatively, eliminating purchases of plastic utensils and other items that have alternatives, and telling their grocers and other retailers they demand less plastic in the products they buy. This includes bringing their own reusable shopping bags to the store, saying no to excessive plastic takeout food packaging, and a myriad of other consumer-focused behaviors, which are probably the most important factors or elements of all those described in this blueprint.

Law Enforcement: Government (s) needs to get serious in terms of fines and penalties for littering and other unlawful waste disposal. Something on the order of a $500 fine for tossing a plastic grocery bag or water bottle in the street might provide an economic incentive for people to avoid doing so the next time they think about it.

Legislation: Legislation will continue along the lines it currently is. Some countries creating laws which try to influence behavior, others creating new taxes on plastic packaging (like the bag legislation), and still others passing outright bans. Our only thought here is that to the greatest extent possible, governments should try to shoot for uniformity when they can. It does little overall good in the larger sense to have a plastic bag ban in San Francisco, for example, when plastic bag use in South San Francisco, less than a mile away, is legal. States and provinces will have to take the lead on this uniformity for it to happen.

In some cases outright bans might be needed. We are pretty free-choice when it comes to such things. However, we also realize that at times problems can be so serious that such free choice has to be modified: You can't drive drunk in most places in the world, minors can't buy tobacco products, grocers must keep there stores clean, and even in the U.S. you can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre if there really isn't a fire.

In the case of plastic bags, we think its time for most retailers to just say no more to the use of the regular, non-biodegradable plastic bags. There are decent biodegradable bags on the market--and they are getting better. There's really no reason, except not wanting to invest, that plastics companies can't make a superior biodegradeable shopping bag today. The science is there. All that's required is some investment. A few more Whole Foods'-style self plastic bag bans by big retailers--Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, Kroger for example--and we will see a superior, biodegradable shopping bag on the market in no time flat.

Plastics Fees or Taxes: We think its time for countries like the U.S., the UK and others to creeate a plastics fee or tax structure. This fee or tax would be shared by the plastics industry, manufactuerers who make plastic products and use plastic packaging (laundry detergent, milk jugs and the like), retailers and consumers. Everybody needs to be all in. If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

For example, lets use a plastic gallon milk jug or laundry detergent bottle to illustrate our example. Everybody down the line--the company that made the plastic, the consumer products' company or milk processor who uses the plastic container, the wholesaler or retail chain that buys it, and consumers who purchase the product at the store, would all pay some portion of a per-unit fee for the item. The same would be the case with plastic packaging, products like toothbrushes, disposable razors and on and on.

The proceeeds from this across the board, shared tax would go into a fund in the respective country. The fund would be used for plastics product and packaging innovation, creating new, alternatives to plastic packaging, and for the clean-up of the lands and the seas.

As we've said, ours is a big picture blueprint. It's designed to stimulate thought and further ideas. Obviously, god, or the devil, is in the details, which would have to be worked out on a country-by-country basis.

The time to start acting on all these fronts is now. That floating plastic refuse mass in the ocean is only going to get bigger. More seabirds and mammals will die. And we know that when other species are dying in large numers of a specific cause, its likely we can be affected similarly in time.

The world's landfills also are getting fuller. Taxpayers are the ones who will have to pay for new ones. Taxpayers also pay for the litter cleanup, and will eventually have to foot the bill for the ocean mess, unless a tax-sharing scheme like we described above is worked out so that industry shares in the costs and solutions as well as taxpayers. There will be many future costs that will have to be paid as well as scientists and others make further discoveries.

Further, we all know about oil, the primary ingredient in plastics. Its getter more expensive, people are killing for it, and it is running out. A greener solution to the plastics situation makes sense not only morally, but also ecologically, economically and health-wise. In fact, its ultimately a survival issue.

Issue Resources:

Below are links to a few stories and articles you might like to read in conjunction with our piece:

>Charles Moore. "Trashed: Across the Pacific Ocean, plastics, plastics everywhere." Natural History Magazine, November, 2003.
>Steve Connor. "Why plastic is the scourge of sea life." The Independent, February 5, 2008.

>Jane Black. "Plastic bags, Headed for a Meltdown." Washington Post, February 6, 2008.

>Terry Ross. "Paper or plastic question would be useful again." Arizona Sun, February 9, 2008.

>Tom Spears, "Truth and rumours muddy plastics debate." National Post, February 10, 2008.

>Aimee Neistat, "Bagging the plastic," Jerusalem Post, February 10, 2008.

Note: Graphic at top of page courtesy London Independent.

Food, Economy and Environment Memo: Is the Era of Cheap Food Over?

Food prices have soared throughout the world in the last year. For example, retail prices for staples such as bread, milk and eggs have increased by 20 -to- 30% in just the past 12 months in the U.S., and continue to rise this year.

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, staff writer Peter Ford says all the experts, analysts and others he talked to for his story all say there's no end in site in terms of rising food prices. Rather, they say it's just a matter of how much the price of retail goods will increase and how fast that increase will be.

Ford says there are two primary causes for this global rise in food prices: the fact that fast-growing and developing countries China and India are buying and eating more food, especially meat, which is resulting in soaring feed grain costs and is reflected in retail price hikes in all grain-based foods and meats internationally.

The second primary cause of soaring food prices is the fact that a greater percentage of land is being used to crow crops like corn, sugar cane, grasses and other feedstuffs to make biofuels.

There is a finite amount of farmland in the world. If 15% or 25% more of that land is being used today to grow biofuel crops than it was two years ago, for example, that means 15% or 25% less land is being used to grow grains, which not only are used to make bread and other foods, but are the primary feed for cattle, pigs, poultry and other animals.

The result is, according to the experts Ford talked to for his piece, a steady diet of increasing food prices for the foreseeable future.

The implications for the food industry are clear: higher costs for ingredients for food manufacturers and marketers, price increases at retail for grocers, and a fear by both that consumers will express their displeasure at constant price hikes in new found ways to an industry that's generally succeeded in keeping the overall cost of food reasonable for consumers.

Read the full Christian Science Monitor article here.