There's a very good, and ridiculously obvious, reason why progressives are reluctant to embrace the so-called "latest signs of progress" (such as the sale of organics by Wal-Mart):  WE DON'T TRUST THEM!

How many times do we need to hear about yet another corporation that says one thing and does another in order to feed the bottom line?  An entity whose sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders is Machiavellian by nature and does not have either the interests of consumers or the welfare of the planet in mind when making decisions.  

How many corporations weasel their way around regulations and laws in order to save money, typically at the expense of the environment?  Case in point:  Horizon Farms calls its milk "organic" because the USDA says it can because Horizon feeds its cows an organic grain mixture.  HOWEVER, their cows have little or no access to pasture for grass and grazing, and are instead stalled almost 24/7.  That is NOT organic farming nor even humane treatment of animals, yet they're cashing in on the "organic" mindset and charging nearly $4 a gallon for their not-really-organic milk.  That kind of practice, that reasoning, which is pervasive, is patently dishonest.

The only true solution to all of this is for communities to once again begin producing their own food and commodities, and to learn to live more simply.  After all, when push comes to shove (and we're almost there), we don't really need to eat pineapples if we live in Maine, and we don't need to eat lettuce in February if we live in Upstate New York.  We are so out of whack with the natural cycle of things, that we're killing ourselves, and we don't even know it.

The last thing I want to support is megacorporations getting involved in the organic foods business.  I'll buy my vegetables from the farm down the road or the Saturday farmers market or the regional farmers market, thank you, and I will never give Wal-Mart or its ilk one dime of my money to support their evil empire.

Environmentalists eat meat, burn carbon, have children.  Should I reject environmentalists because they are not perfect?  We all have flaws.

The meaning of life is to protect the future of life.  Helping corporations along this path is not a compromise.

choffman just said what I was going to say, so I'll just chime in with my agreement: we don't trust them.  Too often companies, governments and politicians make grand statements about what they're about to do for the environment and never follow through.  Any idiot can see how advantageous that is; all you have to do is get a lot of free press when you make your statement, then do nothing.  People will remember the free press, but they're usually not going to do the necessary research to find out if you followed through.

Perhaps the American public doesn't keep track of this stuff, but enviros have been for decades.  It's pretty clear that for every time a company (or any public entity) does what it says it's going to do for the environment, ten more don't.  MAYBE Walmart is sincere, but until real, tangible results are created, we're going to continue to be skeptical.

There are, of course, a whole slew of sustainability issues around corporations like Walmart, but my first reaction when I read such things is, "Don't get played for a chump."

check out the photo that goes with this story... yes i understand the intent... but watch yr media depictions, folks...  attractive woman, wearing fashionable clothing, blindfolded w/ her head to one side [hiding? recoiling? bracing for another?] ... just felt the need to point it out, content of story aside...

Are Renstrom and Perkowitz just using this column to defend Adam Werbach?  Hardly seems necessary, and besides - their derisive language and strawman retort to Sellers and Dudley is embarassingly weak.  Robertson? Great.  Luntz? Great.  They're both talkers, who've gotten themselves some new talk that I approve of.  But Wal-Mart?  Talk is nice, but I need more than talk before I get excited.

In the same way that Werbach's original DoE piece was focused on critiquing the kind of environmentalism that is only practiced in the last bastions of the old guard (like the Sierra Club) and ignored the rest of the greens out there actually movement-building and accomplishing things, Renstrom and Perkowitz' implication that everyone who's not celebrating in the streets about Wal-Mart's claimed revelation is an "ineffective, effete purist" fails to show awareness of avenues of progress outside those of "the big compromise".

I'd like to see the head of the Sierra Club show a bit more respect for her accomplices here in the vast environmental conspiracy.  We're out here getting things done, and to have an extremely poorly-argued (I'm sorry, it's not nice but I don't know how else to put it) piece lash out against other enviros for having a different [more exacting] vision of avenues to progress is souring at best.  I'd like the Sierra Club to join the rest of us on the ground, rather than shooing us away.  Previous posters have astutely noted the difference between "progress" and "pledging progress", and until I see something serious in the former category from Wal-Mart, I refuse to let the country's oldest hiking club goad me into excitement.

We need us all. Backyard organic gardeners, skeptics on the streets, and Wal-Marts.

On the corporate motives issue, the fact is, companies are absorbing the reality that "green" can be good biz in three ways:
they can actually make PROFITABLE products that service environmental needs;
they can make their employees proud, avoiding costly employee churn and ill-morale, both of which sap productivity;
they can build goodwill with customers, in the face of tons of proprietary research carried out by consumer-facing companies showing that "purchase decisions" more and more include a weighing of corporate reputation on the environment (and other social responsibility factors).

These biz trends are NOT going to change, and smart businesspeople "get it."

So sure, insist on seeing the proof in the pudding. But recognize that "the times are a-changin."

Your kidding right? So when do we start trusting religious politicians,and big box company mouthpieces? Fool me once,shame on you,fool me twice shame on me.These people change their stripes to suit the situation and then change back when they need to get something else that they want.Let's see if these doofs are still here next year or the next. What is their agenda this time? To sell more of what ever they were selling before,wether that be a religious agenda or a big box of whatever.You people trully are gullible and proof of how the Russians were able to make fools of us for decades.
 It takes time to build trust and not a bunch of retoric.

Few environmentalists are reluctant to embrace the latest signs of progress. Many are reluctant to embrace the latest talk of progress. If there's anything politicians and multinational corporations excel at, it's self-promotion.

The Chafee endorsement seems to be an inside-pool determination of strategy and tactics. The Sierra Club cries, "Save the last line of defense!" while critics like Krugman and Kos cry, "Build the new line of offense!" There are valid arguments in both camps, although it's hard to see how the Sierra Club's strategy can lead to more powerful environmental representation in Congress over the long term. From one perspective, the Club's tactic looks like a way to strengthen relationships and influence; from another perspective it looks like self-defeating appeasement.

CHoffman's observations are excellent.  I am especially sympathetic to the point about Horizon Farms abusing both their dairy cattle and the good intentions of customers who too credulously accept the claim that Horizon's milk is "organic."

Sunflower is quite correct to point out that none of us is perfect, and to urge us to cultivate a sense of tolerance for one another's imperfections.  But really, well-meaning mistakes, and personal weaknesses and indulgences, are one thing; greed, deceipt, cruelty and injustice are something else again.

And anyway, "It's time for you all to get real!" is hardly a very respectful way to begin a conversation.

On another note, FamousPotato's cautionary observation about the bizarre photograph is well-done.  FP claims to "understand the intent," though, and I am afraid I cannot even get that far.  Since the blindfolded model's profile rather reminds me of that of Kate Mulgrew, aka Katharine Janeway, stalward Starfleet captain of Voyager, it occurs to me that the image might be taken from one of her more kinky holodeck fantasies, approaching the climax.

Horray for Renstrom and Perkowitz for recognizing that there have been significant gains in changing bussiness and reliouis leaders perspective toward the environment.  Its definately a step forward that we need to acknowledge loudly.

For those of you who keep on complaining of trust, remeber that trust is a two way street. We have to have faith that we can and are able to achieve change.  We have to start somewhere.

That Pat Robertson is even publically acknowleging global warming is a great leap forward.  Face it, most social change in America has always been driven by the word from the pulpit.  The American Revolution, slavery, voters rights, even the end of the Vietnam War, were all fueled by religious leaders taking the initiative.  Considering that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, organized religion is a key player for any social change.  And face it, that is what we are really asking for.

If all of those strict environmentalists who where so pure and insisted on supporting Nader had been willing to listen and maybe put some trust and faith in what the huge majority of environmentalists were telling them, we sure wouldn't be in the mess we are.

While it may seem all fuzzy and nice that Walmart has started to make nods the green way, that hardly makes them superheroes.  There are still just a few reasons why it may not be a great idea to support them...surely the authors of this article can see that - and there are very real connections between ecological issues and labor practices, gender inequity, etc.  It's all tied together.  It's going to take just a bit more work there before you'll see me bouncing down to Walmart to plant big smoochies on their cheeks.

And as for the disparaging comments about all us party-poopin' purists:  Fact is, there's a lot of work to be done, and it is our job as activists and cultural critics to consistently push the envelope in order to keep the focus on change.  Of course we should celebrate victories - but if you believe we ought to hang up our critical analysis because Walmart decided to be less evil than usual, you've got to be kidding.  Pat Robertson says "boy it sure is hot" and you're ready to herald in a new green dawn?  Please.  

Celebrate victories and keep pushing and working.  It takes a range of strategies and tactics to make a movement.  Crapping all over others in the movement for practicing a critical discipline in order to make our landbases safer is counterproductive.  

i really don't care what new 'green' products wal-mart has, they still use the same labor and put the same small businesses out in the towns they build in.
plus they still emit a bunch shippin their organic products in from their sweatshops in China
just because somethin is 'green' doesn't mean buying it is, wal-mart still represents the same empty obsessive consumerism that is killing the environment
support local stores not corporate trash.
~Dan

it's not that we didn't listen - it's just that the huge majority of 'environmentalists' are still way too watered down to make a difference
we're in a mess because corporate amerika just walked all over us and the very fact that wal-mart is considered an 'environmentally-friendly' megastore is not only an oxy-moron but a loss in itself - it's not that we want wal-mart to become a sincere environmentally friendly store, we just don't want them period.
~Dan

Sure I can trust them, whatever that might mean.  Doubt that I will buy anything at their stores.  Times are changing, maybe someday I will shop there, but I am not there yet.  Still I support their decision to "go green", great concept, should draw some into their stores and likely to better serve some of their current customers.

Pat Robertson is a religious fanatic who tells his flock that Hugo Chavez should be assasinated, gay people are satanic, and the world is at an end.  He compares the situation in the Middle East with blow-by-blow descriptions of Armageddon from biblical Revelations.  In short, he is almost certifiably, murderously, insane.  Winning him over to the environmental cause is like recruiting Osama Bin Laden for the Sierra Club.  I don't think you want that--

do you?

Jim Ricker

  The authors did make one good point when they said "If environmentalists want to win, we need to avoid being ineffective, effete purists unable to discern between real progress, bad policies, and destructive demagoguery."

  However, the problem is that they people who are "unable to discern between real progress, bad policies, and destructive demagoguery."  are them. (smile).

patrick

Have fun at Wal-Mart!  And good luck with your strategy to elect environmentally conscious Republicans.  

Any other greenwashing you're willing to do?  

While I'll applaud Walmart for recent 'greenwashing' efforts to actively reduce their carbon footprint and provide a better quality of life for their customers (perceived), I can't support the authors on their trip over to Walmart. It's the antithesis of progress.  

Mass consumption is mass consumption, be it there or anywhere else. Their 'Everyday Low Prices' continue to lower the standard of living for everyone, everywhere by forcing distribution channels and manufacturers to produce items for a non-sustainable cost, which many times stems from processes that are not earth sustainable.  

They will also put weight and money behind legal actions to soften organic standards to legitimize processes that will allow all their suppliers to do it at costs that Walmart is willing to pay, i.e., control the market... before long it's not really organic. Worse yet, how long before these resources end up sourced from an area that used to be a rainforest, now leveled to grow 'organic' bananas or other?

In my opinion, one of the failings of the environmental movement is calling it that.  It's also sad that lines have been drawn between liberal and conservatives, republicans and democrats, etc.  What really matters is a person's actions and where they put their money. Actions, not words - people. Start with seeds, move on to deeds...

The question individuals must ask themselves is whether their actions are part of the problem, or part of the solution.  We have to lead others into stewardship through positive actions and words. You never know who you're going to recruit when you encourage good morals.  Let's quit mincing words and start conserving.  And to do my part, I'll see you out there - on my bicycle, of course - JD

I took kung-fu for a few weeks several years ago, and the instructor told us to never fight out of anger.  I think Lisa Renstrom and Bob Perkowitz failed to head my instructor's advice because their arguments are sloppy and exagerated.  

Their point about upping our pragmatism is well taken. Hey, if a Republican gets a good grade when it comes to the environment and you're an environmental organization, then endorse away.  Likewise, if a megastore does something good for the environment, note it and figure out how you can help them do more.  

But the Sierra Club snidely suggesting it's environmentally sound to shop at a Wal-Mart is ironic and sad.

There is a good reason not to trust WalMart's sudden conversion to green -- ooh, perhaps because the corporate giant isn't green? Here in Lafayette, Colorado, corporate executives decided to execute a field of prairie dogs by poisoning them rather than work with activists to relocate them. Somehow, that little item has escaped the attention of everyone who is singing the praises of WalMart selling organics. I bet there are a lot more stories out there.