May 3, 2007
Retailers Come Together to Fight Climate Change
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
In late April, eight major U.K. companies including Tesco and Marks & Spencer joined Prime Minister Tony Blair in unveiling ‘We’re in this Together,’ a campaign to encourage consumers to reduce CO2 emissions.
‘We’re in this Together’ is expected to provide both ideas for behavioral change and practical solutions to help consumers reduce their household emissions by one ton – or 10 percent – over the next three years.
For instance, Tesco is halving the price of its energy-saving light bulbs while Marks & Spencer is relabelling its clothes to encourage people to wash them at more environmentally-friendly, lower temperatures of just 30C. Barclaycard is launching a “green” credit card rewarding customer points for environmentally-friendly purchases, British Gas is providing free energy checks, and B&Q is offering half-price insulation. O2 is rewarding customers keeping their mobile phones when they renew their contracts.
The campaign, spearheaded by the Climate Group, was formed after research showed people feel powerless when faced with the challenge of climate change.
“All our partners are committed to making dealing with climate change more accessible to their customers,” said Dr. Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group. “The success of the campaign will rest on reaching as many people as possible, not just the usual audience for green initiatives. We can only deal with climate change if we do it together.”
Tesco’s CEO Sir Terry Leahy said, “Our customers tell us they want to do more in the fight against climate change, but want our help to make it easier and more affordable.”
The ‘We’re in this Together’ campaign comes as many British retailers have been more aggressively promoting green activities, especially reducing the use of plastic bags. Both Asda and Tesco are rewarding customers for giving up plastic bags, and designer Anya Hindmarch’s cotton tote bag, proudly emblazoned “I’m Not a Plastic Bag,” has been a big hit. An Asda official told The Financial Times, “carrier bags have become a symbol of environmental irresponsibility.”
Martin Hickman, consumer affairs correspondent of the Independent, pointed out that environmentalists believe the government is relying on “piecemeal” corporate moves rather than taking more comprehensive action. But Friends of the Earth, one of Britain’s most outspoken environmental groups, sees the coalition initiative as a “step in the right direction.” Its executive director, Tony Juniper, said, “The fact these companies are signaling their willingness to help consumers become green is welcome…but at the end of the day this is only a small number of companies.”
Discussion Questions: To what degree can such programs as ‘We’re in this Together’
and green efforts by retailers change consumer behavior? Can and should retailers
play a role in tackling global warming? What are the real benefits?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Programs of this type are worthless in affecting global warming. Allow me to loosely quote Patrick Bedard from the September 2006 issue of Car and Driver magazine. I think you’ll enjoy this.
“The assertion is that we gas-guzzling humans have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release CO2 into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.
“Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, regardless of the source. ‘Wrong,’ say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.
“The atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% CO2. Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for their warming potency. CO2 has a low warming potency, but its concentration makes it responsible for 72% of ‘Kyoto warming.’ …
“Nature generates about 30 times as much CO2 as does man (volcanoes, forest fires, etc.). Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring and are alarmed only about anthropogenic (caused by humans) CO2, which is the itty-bitty 3.2% caused by you and me.
“…Water vapor is the biggest contributor by far. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than 2% of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T. … In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warming.”
The obvious question is this: If the U.S. ceased all CO2 emissions, would the resulting 0.00023 reduction in the greenhouse effect be meaningful?
I think we all agree there is global warming and we all agree that most likely there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps we can slow it a bit. The issue is how do we as retailers make money on this?
Rick, I am not “arguing against an authoritative group of scientists on a matter of global significance.” I don’t even know who comprises your group or what their agenda is. Instead, I reported some pertinent, proven, accurate data against which you chose to argue with generalities. The numbers speak for themselves, as does the logic. They’re not my numbers, and I agree with the logic. If you can disprove the numbers or challenge the logic, then step up to the plate. Otherwise, the dugout beckons. Productive discourse is not advanced by dodging an examination of the facts.
Cutting back CO2 emissions in the U.S. will reduce the greenhouse effect by significantly less than 1%. Unless you can prove otherwise (with facts rather than opinions or feelings), the rational part of your mind must accept this figure. So, is this an issue that deserves as much attention as it’s getting?
Doc…a public apology if you found my “broad swipe” unsatisfactory and I understand why you’d want a point-by-point rebuttal. But where we disagree is on the wisdom of arguing against an authoritative group of scientists on a matter of global significance. I am admittedly unqualified in arguing these data points; that’s why I’m putting my faith in the majority of the earth’s scientists and assuming that we should cut back on our CO2 emissions. Call me naive, but I’m putting my money on the Intergovernmental Panel.
So, Rick, which of the figures from the “Car and Driver guy” do you dispute? Or, would you rather just throw references into the air and hope they stick? Specifically, which figures or conclusions do you question and why? Where are YOUR numbers?
Dr. Banks, with respect to your points, I’d just like to refer readers to the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – http://www.ipcc.ch
Here’s a link for a summary of the report – “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”.
Yes, your guy quotes one, very convincing MIT professor. This report is the result of the work of over 450 lead authors and 2500 scientific expert reviewers from over 130 countries. It took 6 years to compile. (Not sure if I’d go with the Car and Driver magazine guy.)
Retailers who encourage folks to us their own bags (“I’m not a plastic bag”) have the best idea, because cutting disposable bag expenses is an evergreen annuity. Retailers who give away their cardboard cartons are doubly smart, since they save on trash removal. Selling more low-energy light bulbs, insulation, etc. has only a tiny profit impact compared to cutting bag use. How often do customers buy 2 loss leaders which are then double bagged and paid for with a credit card? That’s a triple play: the supermarket loses money on the merchandise, the bags, and the credit card fees.
This sounds more like it’s about selling products and making a profit rather than really helping the environment. This is all well meaning and good, however. If global warming is indeed happening, it will happen regardless of whether people in the UK use more energy efficient light bulbs or wash their clothes in cold water. It’s just good consumerism to save money. The added message that this saves the world from global warming is just a sales pitch.
I wonder if retailers in China and Mexico are doing the same thing? My guess is this is only happening in countries where the population has a disposable income to be spent on such items. Regardless of the reasons, it is a retailer’s duty to change behavior if it means separating more money from the consumer and putting it in the pockets of investors.
They absolutely should! Although it won’t make a difference to all consumer segments, for those that do feel passionate about this topic, they stand to win significant consumer loyalty. Not only is it a smart business strategy, it’s simply the right thing to do. Hopefully it sparks a trend!
Three cheers for the British retailers. The retail industry is long overdue in rethinking its environmental practices. There is a long list of low hanging fruit that can be tackled: Light bulbs, energy consumption for transportation, lighting, HVAC, and computer devices; solid waste; cartons; encouraging associates to car-pool; limiting plastic bags and labeling; encouraging biodegradable fabrics…. Does it make sense for regional malls to supply solar or wind-generated energy?
The National Retail Federation should look into industry-wide initiatives. BUT–this morning I had no hits when I searched their web site using the words “conservation,” “green” and “environment.”
While retail programs will not significantly change shopper behavior, they can help shoppers do more of what they want to do, and more people are starting to focus on what they can do to help save the environment. In this important sense, retail programs are catalysts for change.
Providing consumers with specific, actionable suggestions will have some effect. In many cases the problem is seen as overwhelming and people don’t know what they can do as one individual. Giving people options of specific activities is definitely one way to start.
The question for this discussion is “Can retailers lead the charge to reduce carbon emissions by initiatives such as discouraging plastic bags and offering energy-saving tips?” Whether you agree with the Banks’ “Car and Driver argument” or not, and I do not, the question remains, “Can retailers do this and what are the benefits?”
While I am hesitant to say retailers can “lead” this effort, there are many solid reasons why we would want to play an important role. A retailer that chooses to reduce its carbon imprint can also reduce operating costs, while building a positive brand identity, and maybe even actually having a lasting, positive impact on the environment. There’s not a lot of downside to this effort for retailers. Respect for the environment is currently an important trend that is motivating consumer purchasing behavior. It will be an important topic in the Presidential elections next year, and smart retailers, meaning those who listen to consumers, will react.
To begin, reducing energy consumption also reduces energy bills. Reducing plastic bag usage, particularly when replaced by cloth bags that consumers purchase, can reduce supply expenses. Reducing dependence on foreign oil increases United States’ security.
Being an independent, family-owned retailer, we at Sunset Foods take very seriously our obligation to have a positive impact within the communities we serve. Reducing our carbon-imprint and offering products which reflect the growing and clear consumer preference for sustainable goods simply makes good business sense.
On a personal note, I would like to digress and challenge the assertions of Dr. Banks: To dismiss out of hand the findings of the IPCC Report on Climate Change by saying “I don’t even know who comprises your group or what their agenda is,” makes it clear to me that you’re obviously not following this topic closely enough to weigh in with what you are implying is an unequivocal expert opinion. This report was covered widely in the news media and is endorsed by United Nations, the World Meteorological Organization, and hundreds of scientists from around the world. I admit it doesn’t include the sexy photos you’ll find in Car and Driver, but it has certainly earned it’s place in any intelligent discussion of the topic of global warming and climate change.
Of course there will be doubters, that’s human nature. The tobacco industry did a magnificent job cultivating doubters and protecting their interests for decades. Given that, I am not sure that “Car and Driver” is necessarily the most objective source for a discussion on the impact of vehicle emissions on global warming.
To conclude, I would like to share three excerpts from the Feb. 2007 report on Climate Change from the IPCC:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.
Translation of that excerpt: Humans are causing global warming.
I wonder who is responsible for the “Texas” sized plastic and trash wasteland in the Pacific. Is it grocery bags, or could Mount St Helens have spewn all of that? What about all of the fish that are disappearing? Is it overfishing, or perhaps a giant squid eating everything in the ocean?
The climate crisis is not only about the air. It’s about our planet. And any behavioral changes that we humans can make to limit (or reduce) our massive impact will help. It begins with respect for nature as well as each other. Fair trade, fair wages, healthcare and more.
We live in a consumer based society. If retailers are willing to help move the needle, whether they do it because it looks good in their PR or their balance sheet, the motives don’t matter as much as the result. Bravo to the Brits. Now it’s our turn.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Programs of this type are worthless in affecting global warming. Allow me to loosely quote Patrick Bedard from the September 2006 issue of Car and Driver magazine. I think you’ll enjoy this.
“The assertion is that we gas-guzzling humans have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release CO2 into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.
“Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, regardless of the source. ‘Wrong,’ say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.
“The atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% CO2. Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for their warming potency. CO2 has a low warming potency, but its concentration makes it responsible for 72% of ‘Kyoto warming.’ …
“Nature generates about 30 times as much CO2 as does man (volcanoes, forest fires, etc.). Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring and are alarmed only about anthropogenic (caused by humans) CO2, which is the itty-bitty 3.2% caused by you and me.
“…Water vapor is the biggest contributor by far. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than 2% of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T. … In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warming.”
The obvious question is this: If the U.S. ceased all CO2 emissions, would the resulting 0.00023 reduction in the greenhouse effect be meaningful?
I think we all agree there is global warming and we all agree that most likely there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps we can slow it a bit. The issue is how do we as retailers make money on this?
Rick, I am not “arguing against an authoritative group of scientists on a matter of global significance.” I don’t even know who comprises your group or what their agenda is. Instead, I reported some pertinent, proven, accurate data against which you chose to argue with generalities. The numbers speak for themselves, as does the logic. They’re not my numbers, and I agree with the logic. If you can disprove the numbers or challenge the logic, then step up to the plate. Otherwise, the dugout beckons. Productive discourse is not advanced by dodging an examination of the facts.
Cutting back CO2 emissions in the U.S. will reduce the greenhouse effect by significantly less than 1%. Unless you can prove otherwise (with facts rather than opinions or feelings), the rational part of your mind must accept this figure. So, is this an issue that deserves as much attention as it’s getting?
Doc…a public apology if you found my “broad swipe” unsatisfactory and I understand why you’d want a point-by-point rebuttal. But where we disagree is on the wisdom of arguing against an authoritative group of scientists on a matter of global significance. I am admittedly unqualified in arguing these data points; that’s why I’m putting my faith in the majority of the earth’s scientists and assuming that we should cut back on our CO2 emissions. Call me naive, but I’m putting my money on the Intergovernmental Panel.
So, Rick, which of the figures from the “Car and Driver guy” do you dispute? Or, would you rather just throw references into the air and hope they stick? Specifically, which figures or conclusions do you question and why? Where are YOUR numbers?
Dr. Banks, with respect to your points, I’d just like to refer readers to the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – http://www.ipcc.ch
Here’s a link for a summary of the report – “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”.
Yes, your guy quotes one, very convincing MIT professor. This report is the result of the work of over 450 lead authors and 2500 scientific expert reviewers from over 130 countries. It took 6 years to compile. (Not sure if I’d go with the Car and Driver magazine guy.)
Retailers who encourage folks to us their own bags (“I’m not a plastic bag”) have the best idea, because cutting disposable bag expenses is an evergreen annuity. Retailers who give away their cardboard cartons are doubly smart, since they save on trash removal. Selling more low-energy light bulbs, insulation, etc. has only a tiny profit impact compared to cutting bag use. How often do customers buy 2 loss leaders which are then double bagged and paid for with a credit card? That’s a triple play: the supermarket loses money on the merchandise, the bags, and the credit card fees.
This sounds more like it’s about selling products and making a profit rather than really helping the environment. This is all well meaning and good, however. If global warming is indeed happening, it will happen regardless of whether people in the UK use more energy efficient light bulbs or wash their clothes in cold water. It’s just good consumerism to save money. The added message that this saves the world from global warming is just a sales pitch.
I wonder if retailers in China and Mexico are doing the same thing? My guess is this is only happening in countries where the population has a disposable income to be spent on such items. Regardless of the reasons, it is a retailer’s duty to change behavior if it means separating more money from the consumer and putting it in the pockets of investors.
They absolutely should! Although it won’t make a difference to all consumer segments, for those that do feel passionate about this topic, they stand to win significant consumer loyalty. Not only is it a smart business strategy, it’s simply the right thing to do. Hopefully it sparks a trend!
Three cheers for the British retailers. The retail industry is long overdue in rethinking its environmental practices. There is a long list of low hanging fruit that can be tackled: Light bulbs, energy consumption for transportation, lighting, HVAC, and computer devices; solid waste; cartons; encouraging associates to car-pool; limiting plastic bags and labeling; encouraging biodegradable fabrics…. Does it make sense for regional malls to supply solar or wind-generated energy?
The National Retail Federation should look into industry-wide initiatives. BUT–this morning I had no hits when I searched their web site using the words “conservation,” “green” and “environment.”
While retail programs will not significantly change shopper behavior, they can help shoppers do more of what they want to do, and more people are starting to focus on what they can do to help save the environment. In this important sense, retail programs are catalysts for change.
Providing consumers with specific, actionable suggestions will have some effect. In many cases the problem is seen as overwhelming and people don’t know what they can do as one individual. Giving people options of specific activities is definitely one way to start.
The question for this discussion is “Can retailers lead the charge to reduce carbon emissions by initiatives such as discouraging plastic bags and offering energy-saving tips?” Whether you agree with the Banks’ “Car and Driver argument” or not, and I do not, the question remains, “Can retailers do this and what are the benefits?”
While I am hesitant to say retailers can “lead” this effort, there are many solid reasons why we would want to play an important role. A retailer that chooses to reduce its carbon imprint can also reduce operating costs, while building a positive brand identity, and maybe even actually having a lasting, positive impact on the environment. There’s not a lot of downside to this effort for retailers. Respect for the environment is currently an important trend that is motivating consumer purchasing behavior. It will be an important topic in the Presidential elections next year, and smart retailers, meaning those who listen to consumers, will react.
To begin, reducing energy consumption also reduces energy bills. Reducing plastic bag usage, particularly when replaced by cloth bags that consumers purchase, can reduce supply expenses. Reducing dependence on foreign oil increases United States’ security.
Being an independent, family-owned retailer, we at Sunset Foods take very seriously our obligation to have a positive impact within the communities we serve. Reducing our carbon-imprint and offering products which reflect the growing and clear consumer preference for sustainable goods simply makes good business sense.
On a personal note, I would like to digress and challenge the assertions of Dr. Banks: To dismiss out of hand the findings of the IPCC Report on Climate Change by saying “I don’t even know who comprises your group or what their agenda is,” makes it clear to me that you’re obviously not following this topic closely enough to weigh in with what you are implying is an unequivocal expert opinion. This report was covered widely in the news media and is endorsed by United Nations, the World Meteorological Organization, and hundreds of scientists from around the world. I admit it doesn’t include the sexy photos you’ll find in Car and Driver, but it has certainly earned it’s place in any intelligent discussion of the topic of global warming and climate change.
Of course there will be doubters, that’s human nature. The tobacco industry did a magnificent job cultivating doubters and protecting their interests for decades. Given that, I am not sure that “Car and Driver” is necessarily the most objective source for a discussion on the impact of vehicle emissions on global warming.
To conclude, I would like to share three excerpts from the Feb. 2007 report on Climate Change from the IPCC:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.
Translation of that excerpt: Humans are causing global warming.
I wonder who is responsible for the “Texas” sized plastic and trash wasteland in the Pacific. Is it grocery bags, or could Mount St Helens have spewn all of that? What about all of the fish that are disappearing? Is it overfishing, or perhaps a giant squid eating everything in the ocean?
The climate crisis is not only about the air. It’s about our planet. And any behavioral changes that we humans can make to limit (or reduce) our massive impact will help. It begins with respect for nature as well as each other. Fair trade, fair wages, healthcare and more.
We live in a consumer based society. If retailers are willing to help move the needle, whether they do it because it looks good in their PR or their balance sheet, the motives don’t matter as much as the result. Bravo to the Brits. Now it’s our turn.