Whole Foods

[BigSqwert]

Link to article

 

Whole Foods switching to all wind power in U.S.

Deal for wind power credits makes Whole Foods the biggest corporate user of wind power in the country.

By Renuka Rayasam

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

 

Whole Foods Market Inc. is going all green on electricity.

 

The company is buying enough wind power credits to cover energy use at all of its U.S. stores, bakeries, distribution centers, regional offices and its Austin headquarters.

 

 

The deal makes Whole Foods the biggest corporate user of wind power in the country.

Whole Foods will buy 458,000 megawatt-hours of the wind energy credits from Boulder, Colo.-based Renewable Choice Energy Inc. Neither company revealed the dollar value of the two-year contract.

 

"Right now, the main benefit is public relations," said Andrew Aulisi, senior associate at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. "For a company like Whole Foods, which has a particular kind of clientele, I can imagine this is an important way they relate to their customers."

 

Unlike slapping solar panels on a roof, buying green power credits does not mean that wind-generated electricity will power all Whole Foods' stores. Rather, the amount spent on the credits will pump more wind energy into the electric grid overall, reducing the amount of coal and natural gas used nationally.

 

"It's as if a city has been rendered green powered because of this (purchase) by Whole Foods," said Kurt Johnson, Green Power Partnership director at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Whole Foods had been using green power to support about 20 percent of its operations before the purchase.

 

To Whole Foods, the benefits are largely intangible, said regional president Michael Bescanson. "Our customers expect this of us."

 

Buying the credits simplifies green power purchases for large companies with scattered locations. Since the credits became available in 2001, companies have been quick to buy them.

 

Purchases of renewable energy are up 1,000 percent since 2001 in the Green Power Partnership. The partnership includes about 85 percent to 90 percent of corporate purchases, Johnson said.

 

For most companies, the extra costs show customers they are environmentally responsible. But in Austin, green power actually has become less expensive than alternatives because of the structure of Austin Energy's Green Choice program. The program fixes the cost for 10 years.

 

When the program started in 2000, Green Choice customers paid 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with 1.64 cents for regular fuel charges, said Ed Clark of Austin Energy. Even though it was more expensive at the time, buying a green power 10-year contract ends up being more cost-effective for companies. With the latest round of pricing Green Choice customers pay 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared with 3.63 for normal fuel charges.

 

About 400 Austin companies buy green power, with 344 using it for all of their energy, Clark said.

[NorthSideSox72]

Glad to see it. The more money goes into alternative sources, the more development they can do, the more efficient and accepted they become.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection.

 

So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back....

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection.

 

So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back....

 

Thing is, while its not cheap, it seems to me the mainline grocery stores are getting much more expensive lately. Meanwhile, Whole Paycheck and Trader Joe's are about the same. Just my experience.

[YASNY]

I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection.

 

So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back....

 

What do you care about more, people (the employees they traet like s***) or the environmental issues? That's how to solve your dilemma.

[BigSqwert]

What do you care about more, people (the employees they traet like s***) or the environmental issues?  That's how to solve your dilemma.

I consider myself an environmentalist. One way to look at it is if we screw up the environment we are mistreating all people.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection.

 

So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back....

 

Just for my own edification... what makes you think they treat their people badly? I knew a clerk there at one time, she seemed to like it there. I haven't read anything negative. I'd be curious to hear about this.

[YASNY]

I consider myself an environmentalist.  One way to look at it is if we screw up the environment we are mistreating all people.

 

The concerns of the many over the concerns of the few. I can see that point of view.

[NorthSideSox72]

The concerns of the many over the concerns of the few.  I can see that point of view.

 

Myself as well. As they say, act locally, think globally. Environmental issues are inherently global.

 

It's interesting, it used to be the GOP that was the party who did a lot of the early protection of wilderness areas and parks, and was more environmentally conscious. It goes well with the Republican ideals of leaving things alone, and dealing with the concerns of the many, not the minority. Somehow, around the middle of the 20th century, the issue migrated over to the Democrats, who have succeeded in blundering it to death.

[BigSqwert]

Myself as well.  As they say, act locally, think globally.  Environmental issues are inherently global.

 

It's interesting, it used to be the GOP that was the party who did a lot of the early protection of wilderness areas and parks, and was more environmentally conscious.  It goes well with the Republican ideals of leaving things alone, and dealing with the concerns of the many, not the minority.  Somehow, around the middle of the 20th century, the issue migrated over to the Democrats, who have succeeded in blundering it to death.

I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington. Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart. Edited January 13, 2006 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington.  Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart.

Interesting observation. It will be something to keep an eye on.

[Balta1701]

I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington.  Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart.

The environment is almost always going to be low on the lobbying chart, because there's very little profit in it. For example, what would you expect to be more profitable, the coal industry or the people who want to cut down on air pollution from coal? The mining industry or people cleaning up abandoned mines? etc.

 

Nothing would make me happier than to see the lobbying environment overhauled in D.C., but given how it's developed in such a way as to keep the people beholden to it in power and remove those who aren't excessively beholden to lobbyists from power, even the Abramoff scandal probably won't be enough to shake it, even if it takes down 60 congressmen like Jack said.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington.  Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart.

 

I'm skeptical. The environment is something that tends to be the ugly stepchild. The consequences of abusing it are staggeringly negative, for the entire planet. But it's not something right in people's faces (most of the time), so they choose to ignore it.

 

If people knew more about it, like for example, how our environmental policies made Katrina way worse than it needed to be (talking about the flood plain and alluvial fan and reefs here, not global warming), then they might pay more attention.

 

I think the environmental lobby will start to migrate away from the Sierra Club model (complain, grandstand from the extreme and beg for money), and move towards the Nature Conservancy model (buy, analyze, recycle and conditionally sell land for protection). It's in their best interests. As far as marketing goes, most of the environmental lobby is pretty inept. That will need to change as well.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Whole Foods seems to have a decent health care system. employees have a higher deductible, but have HC savings accounts which are tied to check cards. These accounts carry over every year and are contributed to by WF as well as the employee.

 

I have no HC because it's too expensive for me to get coverage at work. It's not cost effective. I'd rather ride out a cold for 3 weeks than pay 150 bucks + a month for something I'm not using.