Are there downsides to the retail giant’s efforts to up sales of CFLs?
Well, here’s another one reported by Fast Company that really left my jaw hanging open:
In the next 12 months, starting with a major push this month, Wal-Mart wants to sell every one of its regular customers — 100 million in all — one swirl bulb. In the process, Wal-Mart wants to change energy consumption in the United States, and energy consciousness, too.
Of course they’ve got the old self-interest motive going:
It also aims to change its own reputation, to use swirls to make clear how seriously Wal-Mart takes its new positioning as an environmental activist.
But that’s still a s**tload of energy saved. It’s a doubling of CFL sales in 1 year! In terms of energy savings, it stacks up like this:
[110,000,000 60 watt replacements are] enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island … one bulb [in every household] is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
There’s lots of interesting data and commentary in the article — about the ripple effects of a shift to CFLs, why GE might be eager to partner with Wal-Mart on a project that could hit them hard, and how Wal-Mart is thinking about this effort.
A switch to CFLs could represent a stabilization wedge of its own, and potentially could send big positive signals throughout society that efficiency matters. I’m certainly sensitive to concerns about Wal-Mart, especially their labor practices (note: this article mentions as a cost — not labor — issue that CFLs require Chinese laborers to hand twist the tubes). However, a shift to CFLs seems like a really big step in the right direction.
Anyone want to comment on the downsides?
Get Grist in your inbox