Wal-Mart and Me

"Don't get me started."

That's usually my way of yelling FORE!! as I gather myself for yet another long-winded, arm-waving rant about the evils of Wal-Mart. I've made a pastime out of bending people's ears about Sprawl-Mart's labor practices, its habit of sucking the life out of town centers and local economies, and its starring role in the relentless homogenization of the American landscape.

No doubt to the relief of family and friends, it's become little more difficult to get my hate on. In recent years, a rash of bad press has apparently bothered the Wal-Mart juggernaut enough to cause it to look hard for the means to rehabilitate its image; the company seized on a series of green initiatives. Bold statements were made: Wal-Mart set its sights on using 100 percent renewable energy, creating zero waste and selling more products that sustain the environment.

I was ready to dismiss all this out of hand as greenwashing, figuring there was just no way the execution could match the promises. But then I started to hear things that gave me pause.

Environmental Defense announced that it was literally opening an office in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters are located. Amory Lovins, a MacArthur "genius" grant winner and personal hero of mine, began doing extensive consulting for Wal-Mart. (Favorite Lovins quote: "I don't do problems. I do solutions." And indeed he does.) One-time Sierra Club president Adam Werbach actually went to work for the company, at tremendous cost to his standing within the environmental community.

And then within NRDC I began hearing -- from people whose knowledge, pragmatism, and commitment I have enormous respect for -- of various ways in which the organization was advising Wal-Mart.

These are all people who quite likely begin and end the day thinking about the imperative of immediate, radical cuts to carbon emissions worldwide, and what they can do to make that happen. And their carefully considered decision is that we don't have the luxury of declining an opportunity for serious talk about sustainability with the world's largest company.

We have, at best, about a decade to turn the corner on global warming pollution before we will consign ourselves irrevocably to experiencing truly horrific consequences from climate change. As Werbach has observed, we will not get there in time if the will to do something about carbon emissions resides only in liberal residents of "big cities, coastal towns, and college towns." Wal-Mart, on the other hand, "speaks to 90% of the American public every year." The company has a unique opportunity to mainstream green-living practices -- to educate consumers about the different tiny changes in behavior can make. If it can bring its legendary supply-chain expertise to bear on stocking its shelves with competitively priced, more sustainably produced goods, it may transform the way most Americans shop. And -- as a centerpiece of global capitalism -- Wal-Mart can make a uniquely powerful business case for sustainable practices. NRDC's Jon Coifman: "If they meet their goals, it's going to demonstrate irrefutably that reducing your carbon footprint is not only possible but financially efficient."

Many observers don't think the company is making as much progress as it claims to have made (see this report from Wal-Mart Watch), and I'm sympathetic to arguments that the company's business model is itself hopelessly unsustainable. I don't like big-box stores; I don't like sprawl. But Wal-Mart, big business, and our carbon-intense way of life won't change without engagement. It seems to me that refusing to dialogue with Wal-Mart would be a form of despair, a step away from stocking up on survivalist gear and waiting for severe climate change to wreak whatever chaos it will bring.

Wal-Mart is continuing to set lofty aims for its sustainability strategy. Sustainablog has an excellent series of posts on CEO Lee Scott's latest promises.