<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://energista.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Energista - The Inherent Un-sustainability of WalMart - Comments</title>
 <link>http://energista.org/node/496</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;The Inherent Un-sustainability of WalMart&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>There&#039;s an easy solution...</title>
 <link>http://energista.org/node/496#comment-3777</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;to the problem of big box stores - don&amp;#39;t drive there as often! When you do, combine it with other trips. Small and local isn&amp;#39;t necessarily the solution... you could easily expend a lot of gas driving all over the city to get to multiple specialized stores as well. Biking isn&amp;#39;t necessarily an option if you&amp;#39;re buying large objects, and the transportation system in many mid-sized American cities like Minneapolis is woefully inadequate during non-rush hour times.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 10:47:34 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 3777 at http://energista.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Wal-Mart</title>
 <link>http://energista.org/node/496#comment-3696</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The big-box stores require customers to travel further, but there are transportation savings because the company needs to supply fewer stores. For example you might locate big boxes along rail lines, further reducing transportation supply costs. Wal-Mart is also experimenting with smaller stores. Customers may eventually make more infrequent trips to big boxes, spending more on each trip, but using a higher-cost neighborhood store for smaller, more frequent purchases. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The article may well be correct that the big-box model is inherently inefficient, but I would at least like to see some discussion of the net efficiency associated with supplying fewer stores as well as hybrid models in which big boxes are combined with smaller local stores.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 08:49:50 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>nobody</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 3696 at http://energista.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The Inherent Un-sustainability of WalMart</title>
 <link>http://energista.org/node/496</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;When I heard that our favorite web monkey Christopher got a job with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ilsr.org/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Institute for Local Self-Reliance&lt;/a&gt;, I had to check them out, partially because they have a promising name, and partially to be sure they&amp;#39;re worthy of him.  The first link on their page talks about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2007/03/28/mitchell/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;the fundamental barrier to a Green WalMart&lt;/a&gt;, and indeed to a Green big box store of any brand.  The big problem is the distribution system.  The enormous amount of effort customers expend to get to WalMart and haul their purchases back from WalMart dwarfs all of WalMart&amp;#39;s other environmental impacts.  And this is an intrinsic element of the way big box retail works.  Fewer, bigger stores that consumers drive farther to get to. So, hats off to ILSR for that fine work, and best of luck to Chris while he&amp;#39;s working there.  Also, read the article, it&amp;#39;s a good one, and covers several other important and interesting considerations.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://energista.org/node/496#comment</comments>
 <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 22:04:04 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>cheerfulchaotic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">496 at http://energista.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
