Wal-Mart, Sam's, COSCO, and now who ever are only building on the on-going addiction of our Oil based society to continue finding ways to use their cars. That being said, fighting these giants is fruitless. They have the backing of the people who work for a living and want the convenience of getting the most for their hard earned dollars any time they want. The small local stores can not provide this however in some locations such as the revamped small towns within the bedroom communities are making a come back. Now for all you tree hugging environmentalist listen up, drop your save the environment mantras and go down to your local planning commission meetings and demand public transportation (Electric buses) and bike ways with green ways and tell them to get of their rears and apply for Federal money to pay for it. Of course this will require that they (the city planners) start earning the money they are being paid and make a real contribution to the community they work for. You will also need to do the same to your local city councils. The soccer moms will still want to drive their gas guzzling SUVs but if they can send junior on his bike to the store or have safe public transportation for her kids to use maybe the cost of that gas hog will become to much to pay for and we can hope for the hired help in Washington to quit stopping the development of the electric car behind our backs. You have to stand up and rally We the People if you want to succeeded and you have to make an effort to fix the problem at the source. The large retailers are here to stay, get use to it. I for one grew up riding the bus and my bike and would today, however I don't want to be come a hood ornament on a SUV because the drive is talking on the cell-phone and not watching the road. Spaceman out!

Wal-Mart has become the world's largest retailer because they give average consumers just what they want; cheaper prices and more selection under one roof.  And, no amount of editorializing is going to change that.  NRDC, which is hardly a pushover in environmental protection, rightly realizes that simple fact and works to help Walmart get greener.

As Wal-Mart is a behemoth for which there are no effective sticks, there can only be carrots to have any chance of being effective.  Presumably the only solution that would be acceptable to you would be if Wal-Mart ceased operations, which will never happen.  So, lets put our efforts into something that can yield results.

Wal-Mart has the largest amount of buying power in the universe.  If they used that to urge their suppliers to green up, it would make a huge difference.  Using smaller boxes for products like cereal and soap would be felt along the whole supply chain through less paper used to make the boxes, more product shipped per semi, etc.  This they could do and effect beyond their reach.

So, you can either whiz in the wind, or make a real difference.  I say, work to get them to use their force for good.

Mitchell makes a compelling case without even addressing one of the biggest destructive impacts of big box chains -- playing a critical role in driving manufacturers across the planet to exploit cheap labor and then shipping products back in highly polluting diesel cargo ships.

DecapeJack's whine (previous comment) that domination by global chains is inevitable (the NRDC seems to share this defeatist view) epitomizes why we enviros are perpetually on the defensive and begging for whatever weak concessions corproations are willing to give.

Contrary to his notion that we just prefer  Wal-Mart, the chain's spread results largely from millions of dollars in subsidies from taxpayer's around the country and evading taxes, not market competition. The Wall St Journal recently ran a great story on how Wal-Mart has evaded taxes in about half the US states by setting up shell corporations, for example. (found by searching "Wal-Mart state tax evasion")

And Wal-mart is not exceptional in that regard--most corporate chains enrich their shareholders by stealing from the public. BTW, I've read her book Big Box Swindle and it truly is a "must read" for environmentalists -- I learned a ton from it.

For all his punctuation problems, Spaceman makes a good point.  Wal*Mart started as a handful of stores in Arkansas, and grew into the giant we know today because they deliver what consumers demand.  We (mainstream America) want our goods cheap and readily accessible.  We don't really care how much the employees get paid or how much power the stores consume, as long as the products are cheap.  If you don't want another Wal*Mart built, don't shop there, and encourage other people not to shop there.  The market works.

Despite what the cable news channels might try to suggest, environmentalists aren't one international cabal of treehuggers who meet every Wednesday night at Bill Maher's house.  We all have different opinions of what it will take to clean up the planet.  Although this "greening" campaign doesn't qualify Wal*Mart for sainthood, it's a very big step in the right direction.  You said it yourself: 3.5 MILLION megawatt-hours.  Think of how much coal will go unburned because of that.  Internal bickering about "this doesn't go far enough," or "I'm greener than you, so my opinion matters more" doesn't help anybody.

several times a week.  I rarely drive there, or anywhere else, for that matter.
As was mentioned, there are definitely things to lament about the existence of Wal-Mart in town, such as its effects on local stores.  But there is a benefit to having an efficient distribution system like they have; it's good for distribution trucks to save fuel by having as few stops as possible, and Wal-Mart's trucks have very few deliveries to make.
I'm not a Wal-Mart evangelist by any stretch, but they are here, and there is nothing we can do to reverse their reach or influence, so it does make me happy to see them using their market power to have a green influence.

I agree.  I think that Walmart is doing very little to try and reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) or promote Smart Growth or Livable Communities initiatives.  You hate to scold someone for doing something good, but energy conservation makes business sense, and I think that Walmart is joining the LEED bandwagon for  ECOnomic reasons, but spinning it as ECOlogical...which isn't necessarily bad.  Milton Friedman would likely point out that fair competition generally produces positive results all around.  The problem is, we've subsidized big box development for over 50 years now through public infrastructure construction and zoning policy, thus taking away the competitive advantage of small-scale proximate retail.  Add to that consumers who are so busy driving around town they spend money without the slightest care of where those dollars end up, and we've got ourselves quite a pickle.

I think that this article hit the nail on the head.  Big box stores have so many negative side effects on walkable communities, free market competition, fair wages, housing affordability, automobile emmissions, etc., the best thing we can do is to spend our money at other businesses....but its gotten so bad, that if I want to buy a bath towel, I hardly know where to go but to a big box retailer.

What's the quickest way to alter our course?...I would say changes to zoning policy.  What's the best way?...I think market forces such as conciencious consumers and property taxes that account for infrastructure cost and environmental impact.  At the rate we are using up non-renewable resources and going into debt (individually and nationally), I just hope we can find balance so as to minimize the economic and environmental consequences.

Just remove the effective subsidies to Walmart, so well documented, and the "Walmart just gives consumers what they want" argument dissolves. Without subsidies their prices would be much higher, giving the small guys the chance to compete on proximity, service and ambience. Then it would suddenly be the small guys "giving the consumers what they want."

The "we can't stop Walmart anyway" argument is like saying we can't stop tax evasion through enforcement, or unnaturally cheap oil through taxes, or cheap foreign labor through trade agreements, or construction and maintenance of all those big highway/boulevards through rezoning, etc.-- all things that are indeed under our control. We can stop Walmart, even under our current free market rules, we're just choosing not to.

My guess is that under the above unsubsididized scenarios, a higher priced Walmart would still be useful for a lot of people, just a lot less often, and the country would be healthier for it.

Excellent article, I'm going to buy the book!

This is sounding like a stuck record.  How is Wal-Mart any worse than any of the other large retail stores?  Sure it's the biggest, but they all wish to be what Wal-Mart is now.  I wonder what it would be like if Target took over the market?

Like other people have said here, "if you don't like it, don't buy it."  People need to stop singling out businesses and act on the industry.  I am sick of people complaining about Wal-Mart; I don't like the place for many reasons, but keep finding myself defending there right to pursue the American dream...

Just curious what effect it would have if communities Stopped people from mowing their grass. All those plants and no mowers running!!
Works for me.
bob

Ms Mitchell makes an interesting argument with lots of "facts" but misses one very important fact about Walmart.  Walmart does not build stores and hope that people come there.  They build them in growing communities and expect that the local community will find the store conveniently located from their home.  Walmart did not force people to move out of central business districts away from the Mom and Pop shops that people claim Walmart is displacing but this is the main reason that people cannot as easily drive to buy household essentials.  Kudos to the person that bikes to Walmart!

Regarding CO2 emissions.  Gasoline usage in the US expanded by 2.6% from Jan 2006 to Jan 2007 (historically this has been between 1 and 1.5% per year) at a time when a majority of Americans believe that burning of fossil fuels is directly causing global warming and when the price of gasoline is still historically high.  I'm betting that a minuscule percentage of that increase
is due to traveling to Walmart (where people are buying items they need to live) and a larger percentage is spent going to places that are not directly related to buying essntials for living.

If we want to make a difference reducing CO2 emissions we need to quit bashing Walmart and start bashing our own driving habits.  How many people could walk to church/school that don't because they can't roll out of bed soon enough?  How many of these people that are using 2.6% more gasoline this year than the previous year complain about the high price of gasoline and choose to ignore that their increased usage directly contributes to the higher price by making the supply that much more tight?  I'll bet that Ms. Mitchell emitted more CO2 in the
writing of this article (driving to Walmart's to take pictures) than many of us use in a month going to Walmart to buy essentials.  The point is that if you want to make a difference and
reduce the amount of CO2 that is emitted, a large part of the answer lies collectively inside each of us Americans and not in the dissection of any particular corporation's CO2 reduction strategy.  I realize that this is "an inconvenient truth" but one that we must collectively embrace if we really want to slow golbal warming.
Remember a large flood starts with a lot of little trickles.

Wal-Mart subsidizes automobile travel every time it provides a free parking space.  Parking lots cost money to build and maintain, but only shoppers who drive use them.  For more on this, see Donald Shoup's great book "The High Cost of Free Parking."  Try to get it at your local library.  

The article and postings focus on consumer awareness and impact of our choices. If stores evolve to meet consumer demands, what does this say about our awareness of what we buy, where it comes from, and how disconnected we may be to realities at home and at the source? Since environments, economies, humans and climates are fundamentally linked, issues abroad will evolve to affect us all in unexpected ways.

When fuel is cheap enough, people don't notice the added economic expense of travelling to a particular store. However, if people had to ride a horse or a bike because of lack of fuel or overly expensive fuel, they may change their mind. The idea of creating public transport to Wal*mart stores may temporarily reduce financial cost for an individual, but it wouldn't mask the other environmental costs of the large-scale store system forever. Promoting the purchase of newer, expendible products and bringing all these goods under one roof has consequences. It's a bit ironic people may shop there for what they believe are the absolute 'cheapest' prices. People rarely think of the additional time and money spent on fuel to travel which should be added to their bottom line prices. What is purchased really stresses ecosystems when goods are moved great distances. This could be more expensive long-term than we think. Lower prices mean people who make what we buy in other places aren't being paid well to look after their families, sanitation and other environments.  Who cuts corners and who reaps benefits? When people get sick, and environmental disasters occur, borders don't hold back disease, forced migrants or other crises. Worry of local economic impact of cutting huge numbers of jobs of Wal*mart employees might be replaced with enthusiasm about getting innovative to create jobs with more global, eco-friendly practices in mind.

I am no real fan of Wal-mart and I miss the small Mom and Pop stores. I patronize those small stores whenever I can. However, I feel that Walmart often gets slammed as "the cause of all things bad" simply because they developed a business plan that works. While I am sure that Walmart has a negative effect on the environment, it may not be as bad, when compared to small businesses, as we portray it.  When I shop at Walmart, I buy food, household supplies, clothes, etc. under one roof. I usually only shop there on my way home from work so that I add very little to my travel. In talking to my co-workers, most of them also combine shopping trips with work transportation. If I buy from privately owned stores, I still have to travel several miles by the time that I visit the grocery store, the hardware store and the clothing store to get the items I would get in one stop at Walmart. I additionally have to question whether an 18-wheeler load going to a Walmart is any less envionmentally friendly than the same load of items shipped into town then broken up and delivered to 200 small independent stores.
We can complain about Walmart all we want but as long as we want to dress fashionably, eat a variety of foods and have electronic gadgets, we are going to cause environmental damage. I don't foresee the North American people buying into living with one pair of shoes, one shirt, one pair of pants, no air conditioning and walking everywhere like my grandparents did. Therefore, while I agree we need to keep pushing for greener businesses, I think we should at least give a nod of approval to the meager efforts that are put into place. No it is not "enough" but it is "something" which is better than "nothing".

I logged in to expand on Stacy Mitchell's piece with my first reaction while reading, which is that perhaps the driving to the stores, while a  significant problem, does not address what to me makes it impossible for Wal-Mart to ever be green in any significant way - but then noticed that others have caught the same ironies.  So I'll elaborate:
WalMart and other big box stores like Home Depot pioneered the strategy of forcing domestic suppliers to take their operations to China. This is so anti-green that there's no amount of store energy-efficiency or packaging reduction that can make a dent in the overall bashing the environment takes in getting the goods from there to here and everywhere else.
Environmental controls that made domestic manufacturing less toxic to the planet are not in force in China, and now the Chinese can't breathe their own air and their water is catastrophically fouled.  What's more, folks, the excessive CO2 emissions that are generated on the other side of the world affect all of us everywhere.  And China may be far away, but it's still part of our environment.
Vast number of containers, on petroleum-fueled container ships using up limited petroleum resources and belching pollutants as well as particulates and yet more CO2, cross the Pacific constantly.  That's our air, too, and oh, part of our food supply and protein source for the world...Not to mention heat sink and climate controller.
Think the excessively long-distance travel of goods that could have been - and used to be - made locally isn't a noticeable, measurable, factor with tangible detrimental effects (and high costs that aren't factored into the nominal cost of the goods)?  The port city (Long Beach, CA, if memory serves) where those container ships unload has extremely high asthma rates because of the intense air pollution generated by the container ships.
Because WalMart goods are cheap (in both senses), the easy availibility and disposability encourages short-term ongoing consumption rather than long-term investment in a quality product.  I can't tell you how much usable stuff I've picked up at our local transfer station over the years.  Easy come, easy go.

To those who say that hey, WalMart's just giving consumers what they want, or, let's not penalize them for having a business plan that works, I say, No Excuses, please.  What you're really saying is that WalMart should be let off the hook for consciously choosing to opportunistically profit from ignorance, mindless consumerism, and the basest race-to-the-bottom, what's-in-it-for-me mentality.  We all know that people love to be told what they want to hear, and by the same token, when you build a business plan on the idea that it's really OK to save 5 bucks and sell your neighbor's job down the river, it helps legitimize selfishness in the public mind.

Yes, we need more consumer consciousness; yes, each of us needs to continue changing our own driving and consumption habits.  But as long as there's an easy way out like WalMart, and as long as people keep taking this terrible, 'hey, we can't beat 'em so let's just stop talking about the (very real) problem,' there will continue to be a large segment of the population who, because the defeatists and rationalizers are diluting the message, will remain ignorant & seduced by the apparent convenience and deceptively low prices of the big boxes.  Don't lay down and die by degrees!  The only way those unthinking consumers will ever start 'thinking outside the Box' is if we all keep hammering:  No slack for WalMart; their entire business model is anti-environment (not to mention anti-people). Until they stop supporting environmentally-exploitive manufacturing and global transport, nothing they can do will begin to offset the damage they do.

To me, its simple: Should we be helping to make Walmart more "green"?  Yes, as Walmart is a reality and many people will never stop thinking that Walmart is a great place to shop, so we should continue to help it solve their green problems. But should that mean advocacy groups should endorse Walmart and encourage our members and supporters to shop there when they take baby-steps to improve?  No. Personally, I will continue to support and shop with retailers that have environmental responsiblility at the core of their mission and will encourage others to do so as well. I view the Walmart situation as similar to the Burger King situation. Good for them for implementing more progressive animal welfare standards. Given Burger King's size, these changes will reduce suffering for millions of animals raised for food. People are not going to stop going to Burger King any time soon, so these changes are important.  But do these small steps mean I can go to Burger King with a clear conscious and encourage others to do so as well?  Not sure if that will ever happen.

Walmart is an example of how large emitters are now feeling vulnerable about their situation.

Slightly off topic, but I am curious as to why greater mileage is not being made out of the emissions from Air Force One. Arguably the greatest individual emitter on earth is the President. Consider his 68,000 miles or so of travel last election year. He travels in a 747, producing about 300 persons worth of emissions per mile flown. My rough calculations (using standard carbon measuring sites) suggest that he produces perhaps 1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum - personally. The equivalent output of a moderately sized thermal power station.

Accordingly, the huge symbolism of the President waving from the steps of Airforce One becomes a potent statement about the current crisis.

And how powerful it would be to turn that around.  Air Force One taken out of service to serve the greater good.

But then, I see that the US Airforce is working hard on biofuels. So presumably AFI could be converted. And would that be greenwashing or not?

I live in a small town in Minnesota whose downtown is being decimated by Wal-mart.  I refuse to step foot in the store myself and many times find myself driving 30 miles just to buy what I need "anywhere but Wal-mart".

I speak with my wallet and buy at small local stores whenever possible.  When it is not possible, then I buy at small "not so local" stores.  I may pay more, but I believe the "efficiency" that the major corporations crow about is destructive to local and rural economies.

I notice that a couple of people have made the assertion that WalMart's distribution is more efficient than that of the Mom & Pop stores.  But I wonder if anyone actually has any facts to back up that assumption.

I'm a small retailer, and my store stock comes predominantly from 2 large distributors that specialize in serving my industry (natural foods) and deliver to me by tractor-trailer.  I really doubt that WalMart's distribution is any more efficient than that which serves small stores.   Distributors have to maximize their efficiency; they plan out routes very carefully and will not deliver to anyone if the extra stop means more than a couple of miles off the route they'd be taking anyway.  In my 6 years in business, this has consistently been an issue.  What that tells me is that the more little stores on an established delivery route, the better the efficiency of the run.  My store actually helps make that run greener than it would be if I wasn't here - those trucks would be going past me anyway.  Given the volume of product a Wal-Mart moves each day, I'm assuming that a single Wal-Mart must be served by several semis a day that come directly from the warehouse specifically to that store that perhaps drive right past many other Wal-Marts (I don't know that for a fact; I'm just guessing); how is that more efficient than a truck that sets out from the warehouse and delivers to 2 dozen stores - and picks up stock along the way to bring back to the warehouse - in a carefully-planned route?  If I'm wrong in my guess about how the goods get to a Wal-Mart, and in fact a given truck makes a loop from a distant warehouse to several different WalMarts, then that's no different than what my distributors do and just bolsters my argument.

Then factor in the energy savings if the 500 or so people in my small town would shop at my store instead of driving to the nearest Wal-Mart (which is over 30 miles in either direction, or I'd probably be out of business): the improvement in efficiency over the current state  would be astonishing.  Again, as I said in my earlier and admittedly preachy comment (sorry - it said "Soapbox" so I got up on it) there's nothing Mal-Wart can do in terms of building or packaging efficiency that can possibly offset the damage they do just by existing - first, as stated above, in the damage they do in manufacturing the goods overseas and then shipping them here, and then as Ms. Mitchell's piece stated, in drawing shoppers away from businesses like mine that they could literally walk to and into their cars instead for that 40-minute drive.

In our town, we don't have a general merchandise store; we're too small.  But there used to one, an Ames, in a town about 17 miles away.  That was a relatively close source for anything from housewares and small electronics to kids' shoes and office supplies.  Then Wal-Mart came to a small city a further 15 or so miles away, and that was the death knell for the Ames.  The new Wal-Mart siphoned off so many shoppers like children after the Pied Piper that now everyone has to drive the extra 30+ mile round trip: there's nowhere else to buy those things.   Even those who chose to shop locally as long as they could had the decision to drive further forced on them when the Ames was driven out of business by shoppers who couldn't see past the end of their own noses.  Thanks to Wal-Mart, the days when you could get by with what you could find within walking distance of your house - that is, when a civilized life in a small town without owning a car was quite possible - are coming to a close. It's all part of the trend over the last, what, 75 years? of making everything more auto-dependent and more hostile to people and civic life.

But the awareness created by people like Ms Mitchell is making a difference.  Wal-Mart's sales have been affected negatively, which, as someone noted above, is very likely the single greatest impetus for this new initiative of theirs.  So they're not impervious...remember, David won!  So keep on boycotting, keep on showing those films, and don't be suckered by the green veneer.

P.S. My store is 2 miles from my house, and my daughter and I bike to work most of the year.  Local stores tend to be staffed by people who live nearby.  So even getting the staff to the local stores is more efficient than getting Wal-Mart employees to their distant and dreary stations each day...and by the way, have you heard about their new staffing policy, in which they want to send their employees home during slow times, and bring them back for the peak times?  Think about the impact of that on air quality, traffic congestion, and fuel consumption! - twice as much travel for the same few hours' worth of pay!

MT, as I posted previously, I question the accuracy of the assumption that somehow Wal-Mart's distribution methods are more resource-efficient than those that serve small stores.

But besides that, I also wanted to comment on your statement that "if WalMart reduced their global impact that still wouldn't bring back most of the friendly little downtowns."

I've already tried to make a case for my belief that the only way Wal-Mart can really reduce their global impact in any meaningful way is if they go out of business: their whole business model is so fundamentally and catastrophically bad for the environment there's no way they can possibly significantly offset the damage they must do. And if we stay smart, don't fall for the greenwashing, keep making noise, more people will start to think like us, and eventually there will be fewer Wal-Marts.  And then, yes, the friendly little downtowns would come back.  The entrepreneurial spirit of the average person is very strong; lots of people dream of having their own little Main Street business.  Give them a business environment in which they stand a chance of succeeding and it's nothing short of amazing the way they'll stick their necks out - and that's a critical part of what makes a town into a community, instead of a cold collation of cookie-cutter concrete boxes siphoning local dollars - and personal information - off to distant corporate headquarters, and staffed by bored workers in dead-end jobs.

"if WalMart reduced their global impact that still wouldn't bring back most of the friendly little downtowns."

Yes of course Main Street would come back if Wal-Mart like businesses were regulated out of existence. Would that be better for the towns of America? Yes, I think so.

Would that be better for energy consumption and the world environment? Maybe not.

I am not saying I don't want the downtowns back. I think Wal-Mart has the right to operate within the law, and you have the right to oppose them within the law, both with regulations and with competition.

Saying that the community interest and the global interest are the same does not make it so, though. You can insist all you want, but lots of people insist on lots of stuff that just ain't so.

One lesson actually being a scientist teaches over and over is that the world doesn't always conform to our intuitions. Is large scale always good or always bad? I think this is too big a question for a simple answer in general.

We are in too much trouble to base our behavior on pure intuition.

Is industrial agriculture bad? I don't like it, but then again I know there are six billion people on earth, and there were only one billion a century ago.

I am not sure that reversing course on agribusiness is possible in the next few human generations. Until the size of the population becomes sustainable, I suspect traditional small scale community based living will be a luxury.

I'd love to be convinced otherwise, but alas, I'm not.

While Wal-Mart is a huge corporate entity, they  are one of the few that has stepped up & made an environmental commitment.  While you may not agree with how Wal-Mart works, you should be open minded enough to realize that at least they are making an effort, which is a lot more than a lot of the other big box stores are doing.  I am glad I can go to Wal-Mart & buy the more eco friendly items (of which they are stocking more variety of every day).  They sell these items at a price that the average American can afford & buying more environmentally friendly items is better than not.  So stop bitching about Wal-Mart & be glad that they are at least trying to set an example for other corporate giants to follow.  By the way, my local Wal-Mart is already doing things to be more eco friendly.  Several times I have been in there they have their lights off completely & are just using their skylights.  That can make a big, positive difference for the environment if a lot of their stores are doing it.  Plus every time I am in there I have more eco friendly choices product wise.  I used to work at Wal-Mart & even then they were recycling all their cardboard & that was years ago.  As far as how they treat their workers, I didn't like it so I left!  There are a lot of people that have worked there for years so I think it is up to the workers to leave if they don't like it!  Anyway, Wal-Mart isn't going anywhere anytime soon, whether you like it or not, so we should ancourage any environmentally friendly things that they are willing to do.  Plus I think it is more environmentally friendly to shop in one store than driving 50 extra miles to make 15 different stops.      

I live in a very large metropolitan area  (Phoenix) and I can tell you that there is a Walmart within a 5 mile radius of just about everyone living in this city.  I don't shop at Walmart because of many of the issues mentioned above, and because I can afford to pay more for my "organic" items that the regular joe.  It is impossible in a city like this (and LA, etc)to expect people to shop at farmer's markets (virtually non-existent)patronize mom and pop shops (they stopped being able to afford rents long ago) take public transport (virtually non-existent) ride bikes (suburban thoroughfares not exactly bike friendly, its over 100 degrees most of the year)and do many of the things that "true" environmentalists should do.  Shopping at Walmart is not the perfect scenario, but in this world there is never perfect, and at least shoppers can have more eco-friendly choices and can get many of their daily needed items at a one-stop shop.  It's not how I'd like it to be, but it is the reality.

Ms. Mitchell:

You describe as the "key issue" that Wal-Mart and other big box retailers are causing some portion of the increase in total driving in the US because they create a retail distribution structure with fewer stores that are therefore farther away, on average, from people's homes.

There is something to this argument, but it is one side of a trade-off, and it is not clear whether Wal-Mart increases or decreases total driving.  

One of the features of Wal-Mart is that it allows consumers to combine several trips that would otherwise be separate drives into one trip.  A typical Wal-Mart Supercenter (almost entirely what they are building these days) combines a large grocery store, gas station, clothing store, electronics and appliance store, pharmacy, health clinic and other features in one location.  So, while I may now have to go 10 miles to the WMSC instead of 3 miles to my local grocery store, I don't have to do a separate 3 mile trip (or added 1.5 mile segment) to a Kmart and another 0.5 mile segement to my favorite gas station and so on. It's not totally unlike the idea of a mall.

Obviously, if my alternative was to drive 1 mile to a downtown area where I would then walk between stores, it clearly increases net driving.  If, on the other hand, I lived exactly at the mid-point of a square 8 miles on a side with the nearest grocery store, clothing store, gas station and electronics store at the four corners, then replacing one of these with a Wal-Mart would definitely reduce total driving.

It's actually complicated, and would take a lot more analysis of the spatial distribution of shopping trips with vs. without Wal-Mart, rather than your simple assertion, to answer the question as to the net impact of Wal-Mart on total US driving.

Best,
Jim Manzi

excellent point. but if they reach their (apparent) goal of having a WM on every #%&@ corner, eventually we won't be able to walk to the corner without wandering past one. A little gallows humor for ya. I could actually walk to WM from where I live, but drive to Target, Whole Foods and Trader Joes instead. Wal Mart is a depressing, horrible place. At least the TJ's and WF are walking distance to each other.