Sprawl-Mart, part two

I’ve been sitting on this one since Saturday morning.  Part of it is that I just wanted the long weekend off from working.  Hey, even enviros need time off.  But another part is that I couldn’t figure out how much I wanted to say.  It’s just too depressing.

The Post ran another “greening of Wal-Mart” story, this time on the front page.  It contained a skeptical quote or two, but again was more positive than negative.  I just can’t bring myself to respond to it fully, in part because I already did.  But, if I were to do so, these are some of the things I might cover:

1.  Yet again there is a story about “green” and Wal-Mart, and yet again there is not a word about location, building form, sprawl, or the abandoned buildings left behind.

2.  I worry that this is becoming the norm, that the public isn’t going to understand, in any context, that “greening” doesn’t work unless you address the issue of location.

3.  In Wal-Mart’s case, when they first approached NRDC and a few other organizations about working with them, I proposed that they meet with our Smart Growth America coalition, and sent them some perfectly reasonable suggestions for how we might begin to address these issues.  I thought this was such a hot-button issue that it would be a mistake for NRDC to be isolated from our environmental allies in working with the company.  They could not have been more unresponsive on this issue.

4.  They did eventually begin some talks with the National Trust which, back when my friend Constance Beaumont was their state and local policy director, did some wonderful work on better models for superstores and how to control big-box sprawl.

5.  One fear I have is that this will lead to some experimentation with more urban footprints for stores, but the company will do this in addition to sprawl, not instead of it.  For them it’s just another market to conquer.

6.  Another fear is that the organizations that have begun working with Wal-Mart will now think twice about criticizing them, because they don’t want to interfere with the work they have begun.  Wal-Mart, of course, would like nothing better.

7.  And another is that the company will start using the names of the environmental organizations it is working with to greenwash their image.  These stories prove they are already succeeding to an extent.

8.  In case there is the slightest doubt of the company’s intentions, the Post article clears it up:  “The overarching goal is to improve the company’s image so it can operate unhindered by the automatic opposition its reputation has inspired.”

Read it and weep. 

An irony in this for me personally is that I am usually the “softer,” more pragmatic one at NRDC.  (And, even more ironically, I feel like a leftist maniac around my extended family and non-work friends.  I really can’t win.)  I believe in working with industry, and have come to believe in it more than in hard-edged, knee-jerk opposition and always insisting on the toughest position on environmental issues.

But this isn’t what I had in mind.