What exactly do you find false about it?

Flourescent bulbs use about 80% less energy vs. their incandescent counterparts.
Cotton is better for the environment than polyster, which is actually a plastic.
CD packaging is minimal, using recycled cardstock for packaging instead of plastics.
My local WalMart also uses skylighting and ceiling fans to reduce energy consumption.

Am I a dumbass for knowing this?

I think most advertising uses legal wording loopholes and consumer assumptions to achieve sales.

ie: Putting anti-bacterial on soap so that the consumer thinks the higher priced soap does something the others don’t do.

It does get old seeing someone “ride the wave” but you have to be able to think and pull fact from fiction.

If Wal-Mart sits on their hands, it’s easy to get more criticism heaped on them. They’re a popular target. If they don’t say anything, then people assume the worst. If they point out some simple facts, they get criticised. As the largest company in the world, I would bet they track electricity and other other utilities down to the very last penny. Cost analyses based on a local area’s climate play into design of their buildings. They paint roofs white in hot climates to reflect heat. They use climate traps at their entrances to reduce loss of heated or cooled air. These are things that all businesses do, probably, but unless you’re a builder, you normally wouldn’t think about. Additionally, the Wal-Marts I know are usually on bus lines.

 
There is nothing false about the products, but just about every store that sells light bulbs also sells flourescents, and plenty of other stores sell cotton and organic cotton.  As far as the earth friendly movies and music, they were refering to the theme (ie: An Inconvenient Truth), nothing to do with packaging.  The point is you can get the same stuff at any store, there is nothing special or more environmental about shopping at walmart.  Its just like the automakers, they make one or two vehicles that are hybrid (which they sell very few of, probably so few that if it was any other vehicle it would be droped from production) or run on flex fuels (which there are very few filling stations for, avg maybe 2 per state last I checked) then they make tons of commercials advertising how green they are.  They are only trying to appeal to the environmentally conscious, which is ok except that they aren’t doing anything exceptionally environmental- but in reality I guess that comes down to the “environmentally conscious” not being environmentally conscious enough to realize.
 
Its good to hear that your walmart has the sky lighting and ceiling fans, I’ve actually looked up at the massive ceiling of mine and thought that those additions would make a lot of scense.  I also think its ridiculous to stay open 24/7, but as you said I’m sure someone analyzes that sort of thing and its not a loss for them. 
 
I know what you mean about being the target, there is a local group that whose mission is to stop the destruction of Louisiana coast and wetlands due to the use of cypress mulch, but their only priority to to stop walmart and lowes from selling it.  Its like they don’t even realize that someone cuts the tree down and the consumer buys the product, its only walmarts fault.  They constantly send off these post cards, organize rallies, and even had a call-in day, got hundred of people to call in and ask stores to stop selling it.  Thats when I lost interest. 

Yep, marketing. There’s a name for this type of advertising (wish I could remember what it’s called), where it’s something that everybody does, but one claims it as making their product(s) special, and if competitors later claim the same, consumers think they’re just wanna-bes copying the original. The “born-on date” on beer sold in the USA, for example; about 8 years ago, one beer company touted their beer’s freshness with the “born-on date”, but the fact is that ALL beer sold in America had to be date-stamped. It might have helped them sell more beer for a while, but pretty soon everyone caught on.

Don,

sorry to burst your bubble, CFLs and fluorescent tube lighting contains enough mercury to pollute 30,000 litres of water.

Wonder how many of these green bulbs will be disposed of properly when pseudo gren punks like yourself pretend to save
the world.

Can you run us through your mercury filled lighting disposal plan, do you have one ??

 
I believe the word is called misleading.

????????????
but I’m not surprised


Glad to see your little mercury crusade has given your life meaning.

There is no mercury recycling from these bulbs, they can’t be incinerated
as the fumes become toxic.

There’s no provisions for disposing of these things

My point was there is no point in buying these bulbs, incandescent bulbs are more eco
friendly… tungsten isn’t a boichemical hazard.

In the long run these thing are more dangerous… there’s easier ways to cut down on energy
comsuption.

I’m betting the profit margins on these bulbs are much higher for companies hence why they’re
touting them.

I think the word is ‘mindless, or token environmentalism’

“I think the word is ‘mindless, or token environmentalism’”

Well, that pretty much sums up the environmentalist movement.

I happen to think jboy’s right about those bulbs.  Just another form of consumerism that targets wannabe environmentalists.  ALL retailers of these bulbs are complicit, not just Wal-Mart.

It’s also mindless to oppose Alaskan oil drilling when the only feasible alternative is to purchase from despots.

Maybe more mindless: Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was heralded by environmentalists as a way to clean the air and imposed on California by do-goodie legislators.  Turns out that MTBE actually reduces gas milage (yeah, that’s NOT so good for the environment [>:] ) and our own government has polluted our water supply with a known carcinogen.  Oh yeah – for years we’ve paid more for gas than anywhere in the country so that we can add this poison to to our tanks and our bathwater.

And if everyone does buy a Prius, what are we going to do with all those batteries when it’s time for the junk yard?

Most environmentalism is just so much hysteria to make the do-goodies feel goodier about themselves.

Wow, that’s rather a blanket statement, Russ.

I don’t like coerciveness of any movement, environmental or anything else, and living in California, you probably have to deal with a lot more wacky do-good ideas than I do here in north Florida, where there is literally zero public transit, and every other vehicle is a pickup truck with a pit bull in the back—with an overfed driver.

Whatever I might think of the reality of climate change, I do think reduction of energy use, recycling, and sustainability in general are admirable goals, in and of themselves.
Why do entire cities and their skyscrapers have to be totally lit up at night?
However, I appreciate the fact that we shouldn’t blindly adopt new methods just so we can pat ourselves on the back—especially when the “solution” is worse than the problem.
Perhaps there is too much emotion and symbolism caught up in this movement: we are reacting to drowned polar bears and six-legged frogs when we should be approaching the situation with more reason and caution.

It seems like commerce always cheerfully enters into these situations before anyone even fully understands what is going on, and soon enough we are being sold on the latest gimmick.

Nonetheless, I don’t think we can fool ourselves into thinking that pollution is some bogus, outlandish concept.

Don, I’d like to know the name of that marketing strategy; I know exactly what you’re talking about, there has to be a real name for it.

Whoah Russ! Now wait just one little minute. I was gonna stay out of this post, just read and move on but then you had to speak about MY neck of the woods.
The ANWR issue isn’t so much about oil but natural gas. The people who are locally opposed to it are not mindless. Come on, we all need energy, especially the U.S. who uses a rediculous amount of energy and willing to go to war to secure it. Yes, we know that ANWR is going to happen. The adverse affects that people need to understand is that ANWR is a huge area that is also the breeding ground of one of our largest caribou population. We screw with that and thousands of people (including myself) could lose a large source of meat to eat and toursim (a sustainable economic resource in Alaska). You need to understand the permanant consequences of our actions here. We need to make sure that measures are taken to protect our wildlife and environment as much as possible before we open the gates to drilling. We also need to make sure that Alaskans get jobs and royalties off the drilling to secure economic viability for our state and nation-rather than letting BP or whoever just come in and screw up our lands, jobs, economy and then leave when it runs dry. Then what?
These huge multinational Corps. are looking out for “fiscal responsibility” not economic, sustainable or environmental responsiblity. I believe in balance. People need to speak up when they see these companies (and dirty politicians) make profit by running over what’s right. You talk about the light bulbs-sad when they can market something like that. The mini cooper had commercials in a magazine talking about gas usuage-it’s not a low fuel vehicle, just a small one. Advil markets the same exact drug for headaches and then for arthritis pain-what’s up with that? People need to speak up, share knowledge and be an educated consumer. Thanks for the light bulb facts. I’ll continue to shout when I see Frank Murkowski, our governor, hand over one of Alaska’s most valuable resource to dirty oil companies and wait until I see something tangible and workable before I approve of drilling.  I’m not some “mindless” environmentalist-just aware of all the facts and what’s at stake!

Cil:  I strongly support intelligent environmental controls.  California has cleaned itself up tremendously over the years, and I acknowledge that environmental awareness brought on by activists over the last decades has been a catalyst for improvement.  But I stand by my statement that now, most environmentalism is over the top.  They’re outlawing fireplaces and barbecues here now.

Lit skyscrapers:  Energy $  should be adequate motivation for building managers to shut them down.  We don’t need  environmentalist  moralism to do the right thing.  Same goes for your home.

2/3 of cancer has been linked to lifestyle, about 2% to environmental pollution.  EAT LESS, EAT REAL FOOD = better health = less packaging = recycling doesn’t have to be as large a part of everyone’s day.

Sorry about that Groovy – brain fade – I know it’s about natural gas, but it’s gas that can help us be more energy independent and coal free.  I agree with most of what you said.  My beef is with the environmentalist movement, the ones who want to disable science and technology and commerce, not control them, the ones who think replacing cars with bikes is sound public policy.   The ones who have a sincere interest in a better environment and who also understand that business and technology are the ones achieving this as we speak are unfortunately not in the environmentalist spotlight.

 
If you were here in Mississippi, they would also have a gun rack in the rear window.
 
 

“Cil:  I strongly support intelligent environmental controls.  California has cleaned itself up tremendously over the years, and I acknowledge that environmental awareness brought on by activists over the last decades has been a catalyst for improvement.  But I stand by my statement that now, most environmentalism is over the top.  They’re outlawing fireplaces and barbecues here now.

Lit skyscrapers:  Energy $  should be adequate motivation for building managers to shut them down.  We don’t need  environmentalist  moralism to do the right thing.  Same goes for your home.

2/3 of cancer has been linked to lifestyle, about 2% to environmental pollution.  EAT LESS, EAT REAL FOOD = better health = less packaging = recycling doesn’t have to be as large a part of everyone’s day.

Sorry about that Groovy – brain fade – I know it’s about natural gas, but it’s gas that can help us be more energy independent and coal free.  I agree with most of what you said.  My beef is with the environmentalist movement, the ones who want to disable science and technology and commerce, not control them, the ones who think replacing cars with bikes is sound public policy.   The ones who have a sincere interest in a better environment and who also understand that business and technology are the ones achieving this as we speak are unfortunately not in the environmentalist spotlight. “
 
 
Unfortunately for us, People are too ignorant and lazy, the only way for complete cooperation (or enough cooperation to make a difference) is for a large-scale natural disaster that will kill countless people for any consumer to really ‘wakeup’ and realise the scale of what they’re doing.

Ditto Icbites~
And apology accepted Russ
Yes, the weather is changing immensely and only going to get worse. And what constitutes natural disaster-look at how poorly we’ve responded to what’s already happened. Just in Alaska, glaciers are melting, the ocean is flooding the native villages in the North, and forest fires have been out of control for the last three summers! The bark beetles are breeding wildly and killing the trees because the temps have risen which means more fires to come-it’s nasty
Why are people not noticing or caring about this? What will it really take? My goodness, it already feels too late as it is……..and it doesn’t help when huge companies take advantage of what little consumers’ concerns exist to market false ecofriendliness in thier products to maximize profit. We really do need to make laws that protect some kind of standard of operating businesses while protecting our future.
In response to the oil/natural gas issues: let me explain a paralell economy in Alaska. Mining. Yes, it’s a great economy and many families have solo mine operations and companies make loads of money mining. But if you’ve ever gone hiking into the woods and walked suddenly upon an abondoned mining camp from the past because they didn’t strike it-it’s sick! I’ve stumbled upon open dump sites used to dump empty toxic canisters, piles of trash sitting open-blowing into the trees and ALWAYS is a creek found nearby that has been poisoned because creeks are essential to mining. Cabins, parts, snowmachines, trucks-a whole disaster area just rotting in the woods. And no one is accountable-just left there. Do we let oil companies come in with the same open permit and do what they need to do and leave whatever behind? If we don’t set standards before hand-trust me! They won’t!
I don’t live in California so I really can’t see from your perspective and perhaps there are a few overzealous nuts who think we should go back to the 1800’s or something…but we really do need to change our standards for vehicles, products and industry.

 
I suppose people don’t notice or care because the majoirty of the population lives in a concrete jungle and things like destruction of forests, melting glaciers, or loss of wetlands have no effect on them, not yet anyway. 
 
As far as a large-scale natural disaster happening, well one already has- Katrina.  Of course some blame should be put on engineers and insufficient levees, but coastal errosion and land subsidence are rarely mentioned.  South Louisiana loses over 30 sq. miles of land per year, in the past 70 years we’ve lost the land equivalent of Delaware.  If that isn’t important enough, its scientifically known that every mile of wetland reduces storm surge for 1 foot.  Yet the response to this disaster is to build higher levees and rebuild industry. 
 
I guess we’ll have to wait for more, larger-scale natural disasters before any real action is taken.