However, the greening of Walmart is an important and positive step for several reasons:

1. Walmart is big enough to drive technical innovations all by themselves.  They can commission the development of a new line of freezer cases, or a hybrid delivery truck, and recover their development costs within a few years of rolling out the new technology.  In the meantime, new and better designs become available in industries that are traditionally very conservative and slow to change.

2. Walmart reaches a demographic that is currently almost entirely outside the green loop.  A committed green is not going to be seduced by their campaign -- I hope!  But committed greens are not, and have never been, their target demographic.  They are bringing organic food to the McDonald's crowd.  It may be imported industrial organic, and thus only somewhat better than what was there before, but it is an improvement certainly in terms of reduced toxicity and probably energy consumption.

3) They are forcing their vendors and suppliers to change, reducing packaging and in other ways greening their operations.  Again, even a slight improvement in this area has a HUGE impact, because Walmart is so big.  And once Walmart's vendors have made the investment in greener production or packaging, these improvements will benefit the other companies supplied by these vendors.

So it's really a matter perspective, and relative improvement.  Walmart isn't good, but they do seem to be becoming significantly less bad.  In the meantime, Whole Foods is making an effort to source locally, and hosting farmer's markets in their parking lot.  And the local food and slow food movements are gaining wider appreciation among the committed green constituency.  It's progress.  Maybe not enough to save us, but still progress.

Even something bad can get better. Even something still bad on balance can be less bad than it was. It seems to me that one can acknowledge and encourage improvement without being taken to endorse, root and branch, whatever entity or practice one is encouraging.

There's purity and virtue. And then there's pragmatism and effectiveness. It's always a balancing act, and I'm happy to see people discussing the proper balance to strike. But when it comes to Wal-Mart, where even tiny changes can ripple into enormous effects, it seems obvious to me that greens are better off at the table helping to guide decisions than outside waving placards.

grist.org

Also, I'm a little tired of the "local=good" mantra- there are plenty of local producers who exploit their workers, trash the environment, and produce crappy products.

How about we work on national policies that address the roots causes of environmental destruction- subsidized fossil fuel, not taking into account environmental services in resources, etc- instead of believing that somehow if people bought more organic broccoli from mom and pops we'd solve our problems.

And by the way, with all due respect to Bill Mckibben, he is simply wrong- it matters in a huge way whether Walmart buys organic or not- I'm surprised he doesn't realize this.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

And J.S., McDonald's has been buying some fair-trade coffee and contemplating phasing out hydrogenated oil. Lots and lots of people eat there. Perhaps you should sidle up and order a Big Mac, just to show support?

Victual Reality

Also, the comparison between MickyD's and Walmart isn't apt- Walmart sells plenty of products that are not bad for people's health and the planet, while McDonald's sell exclusively (or just about) products that are bad for people and the planet.

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

   Tom, your vision is lovely, but when would it happen?  I don't see any path that is going to take us along the road you and Bill McKibben advocate.  I work with a man who says he cares about the environment, but isn't an environmentalist.  If I suggest that we would be better off without cars, he gets huffy and says "In that case, forget the whole thing, I might as well buy the biggest SUV I can find and run around destroying the planet since there is no workable solution to our problems."

   So, as much as I dislike car culture, pushing a solution that requires people to actually stop using the damn things (mostly anyway) won't get me anywhere.

   This is also true for any solution that suggests Walmart change its ways completely or disappear.  Since it's business model is so successfuls, if it did change as drastically as people advocate, it would merely be replaced by another company following the old successful business model.

   And if it's president advocated changing its global business model, he would be immediately retired.

   In short, this kind of change is just not going to happen.  Maybe not ever, but certainly not in a time frame to address issues like global warming and sustainable development.

   I have shopped at Walmart once (with a friend, her choice) and visited the one in Shenzhen.  Not much I am interested in.

   But if we can make them behave, it makes a real difference!!  To all of us.

   People who support buying local should find a way to work with these folks.  Waiting for the 80% of Americans who shop there to stop is like waiting for capitalism to end.  It shows no sign of happening any time soon.  

   And if McDonalds does good, I applaud them too. (and no I don't eat there.)

patrick

Since 40% of Earth's land surface is currently given over to agriculture in some form (including grazing), and since Earth's population is still increasing, it's imperative that we understand the best techniques for growing food.

The current discussion among scientists centers around the fact that modern farming techniques wear out the land fairly quickly.  Organic farming is being discussed simply because it maintains the land for future crops more effectively.

The problem with organic farming however, according to these scientists, is that organic crops don't have the high yields of the chemically enhanced mono-crops that are so common today.  And high food yields are exactly what the world will need in the coming century.

These issues are complex.  No one has the answers.  Many scientists are working toward answers, as best they can, but they don't have the exact solutions at this time either.

If Walmart wants to sell organic foods, I personally believe that's excellent.  No matter how you feel about Walmart, whether YOU shop there or not, you have to respect the fact that so many people DO shop there.  If Walmart can help to educate people about organic food, and if organic food is figuring into the conversation about how the world will feed itself over the coming century ... then, to me, that's a good thing.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

My background was astronomy, so I tend to think in big pictures.

I suspect as this century passes, over the coming few decades especially, we might find our choices somewhat limited with respect to issues like organics vs. monocrops, and so on.  Scientists are working now to try to understand what will work - what CAN work - to feed Earth's growing population.  Nine billion on the planet by 2050.  And 40% of Earth's land surface given over to agriculture now.  If the answer is to grow crops organically, then we will have to do that, to preserve the soil.  If it is to continue to grow monocrops with chemical fertilizers, then - to feed the teeming billions - we will have to continue along that road, or else many will not have enough food to eat.

The problem is that the issues are complex, and scientists don't have the answers either.  But a whole community of scientists from around the world is hard at work trying to figure it out.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."