Wal-Mart’s environmental efforts are paying off.

AP: Wal-Mart has made their fleet of semis 15% more fuel efficient as part of their enormous new environmental commitment. The company runs the nation’s largest trucking fleet, with 7,200 tractor-trailers. They intend to make them 25% more efficient by next year and 100% more efficient by 2015. Yet the pathetic American auto industry insists that it’s not even possible to increase efficiency by 10% in a decade. Feh.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

10 replies on “Wal-Mart’s environmental efforts are paying off.”

  1. Now if they would stop treating their employees like crap I might consider shopping there. I realize most corporations are only doing good things because it makes good business sense, but it makes good moral sense for me to reward these companies for behaving. Quid pro quo, and all that…

  2. Three words:

    Rocky Mountain Institute.

    http://www.rmi.org/

    Wall Mart has contract RMI to oversee its conversion and the upgrades of its stores and construction of new stores.

    It is a shame that the article did not mention them . . . they have also worked with Texas Instruments, and even the military.

    Amory Lovins (the founder of RMI) is one of the leading thinkers on the technology and reforms that we will need to save our asses.

    His basic line is that efficiency is as real of a resource as oil, gas, or coal, and ready to be exploited just as easily. He believes that economic forces will solve the problem, hence the fact that Wal Mart is already saving 35-50 million on this project and is only 2 years into it.

    And as far as Dan’s point . . . At this point, climate change and peak oil are such an existential threat, and Wal Mart has such a gravitational affect on the economy (because WM’s foot print is so large these improvements will cascade through the system), I think, I personally, have had to consider less the treatment of their employees.

  3. The critical difference is that Walmart pays for the cost of fuel while the auto manufacturers are tangentially affected. The popularity of high consumption vehicles, such as SUVs, is an indicator that people may complain about gas prices at the water cooler but they vote otherwise with their dollars when it comes to purchasing a car. In short, the manufacturers have much less incentive than Walmart to innovate.

  4. From nro.com:

    America suffered a casualty in the Green war on industry Tuesday when Chrysler announced that new Washington mpg mandates have helped force the cancellation of the Chrysler Imperial – an upscale sedan that would have competed against the Lexus LS430 and the BMW 7-series.

    Unlike its competitors, Chrysler is heavily reliant on large vehicles sales, so proposed Democratic legislation forcing automakers to average 35 mpg over their entire fleet by 2020 hits Chrysler particularly hard – and makes it difficult for the manufacturer to introduce any new, large vehicle.

    It is environmentalist mantra that going green will grow the economy, but Chrysler’s announcement is brutal evidence to the contrary. A model like the Imperial, originally planned for 2009, would add another shift to one of Chrysler shifts – or 1,000 jobs.

    That’s 1,000 jobs allegedly “pro-worker” Democrats just kissed goodbye.

    http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFjNzM5NDZiMWU2OWFlY2ZkODU1ZjcwZGU4ZGQxZGY=

  5. No not true.

    Manufactures have plenty of incentive to innovate. It is the very same profit incentive.

    Another RMI project was a Texas Instruments factory. They were able to build the factory below the usual cost for a comparable project and it uses 30% less energy. Saving them a ton of money.

    And Judge, are you suggesting we put national interest and security at risk to protect a backward ass, poorly managed company like Chrysler? Also what do you think is going to happen to the American Car industry when China starts selling us SUVS that get 50 miles a gallon. At 3 to 4 bucks a gallon what are you going to buy? I say we adapt now.

    The technology is on the the shelf to do these simple improvements. We have done them before (In fact much of the improvement in Car tech was a direct result of CAFE in the first place), and in fact car company’s make their
    vehicles more efficient every year. But now you see that in increased ability to pull 2 tractor trailers and a dump truck and your neighbors boat for good measure. We also see this increased efficiency in the ability for trucks to go to zero to 60 in .05 seconds, or whatever they are pushing now.

    But back to the national interest: This is an issue of public policy and national security: Condie Rice has said so her self, our addiction to oil is warping our foreign policy.

    Not to mention how vulnerable our Military is to an energy disruption. Here is an interesting factoid: 5 billion of the Pentagon’s budget buys energy (granted a small perecnt, but its hard to drive a tank if you aint got the gas) and much of the fuel used by the military is used to move fuel around: of the gross tonnage moved when the Army deploys, 70% is fuel.

    Something to consider, do you know that if we improved our entire light vehicle fleet’s average MPG by 5 mpg, we would not need to import foreign oil. That would wipe out a large chuck our trade deficit, huh? But I suppose that would be bad for America some how.

  6. It’s this bit of the NRO’s logic that’s particularly bad:

    Unlike its competitors, Chrysler is heavily reliant on large vehicles sales, so proposed Democratic legislation forcing automakers to average 35 mpg over their entire fleet by 2020 hits Chrysler particularly hard – and makes it difficult for the manufacturer to introduce any new, large vehicle.

    Because Chrysler is totally dependent on the sales of dinosaurs of vehicles that are simply awful for the environment and our “addiction to oil” (to use the president’s phrase), the routine modernization of mileage standards presents a problem for Chrysler. I have zero sympathy. This would be like complaining that the requirement that cars have seatbelts was really bad for company that made seatbelt-less cars. Or the requirement that poisons not be in foods was bad for companies selling food laced with toxins. Chrysler has made clear through their behavior that they will not voluntarily improve their cars, whether in the interest of national security or our environment, so now they have to be forced to do it.

    Tough shit, y’know?

  7. Reality check time:

    the Chrysler Imperial – an upscale sedan that would have competed against the Lexus LS430 and the BMW 7-series.

    I’m sorry, but are you @)(*!@! kidding me? Anything that starts off asserting *any* Chrysler product is competing against *any* Lexus or BMW product just threw its credibility in the ditch. So here, let me rewrite it with my stab at the truth:

    Chrysler seized a chance to blame its poor performance on “the Green war” on industry Tuesday when Chrysler decided to blame the new Washington mpg mandates for the cancellation of the Chrysler Imperial – an upscale sedan that it claimed would have competed against the Lexus LS430 and the BMW 7-series. After further market research, however, Chrysler realized that the Imperial would have been an embarrassing failure, and the mpg mandates provided a desperately needed excuse to present to its shareholders.

    Unlike its competitors, Chrysler is heavily invested in poor design and quality control. Further, its demonstrated aversion to engineering innovation puts it in a particular poor position to deal with proposed Democratic legislation forcing automakers to average 35 mpg over their entire fleet by 2020. Thus, reality hits Chrysler particularly hard – and makes it difficult for the manufacturer to introduce any new, large vehicle.

    I’ll let you guess which is closer to reality.

  8. It’s illuminating to see how much more you guys know about the automobile industry than those actually engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of cars.

  9. Dude. Are you sure you want to set yourself up as the defender of Chrysler’s competence? I mean, I know you feel like you’ve got relevant experience, what with defending Bush, but . . .

Comments are closed.