It is very unlikely that this move is as substantive as WMT's marketing implies.

First, Wal-Mart is sourcing at farms that are near its DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.  They are not sourcing near local stores.  These suppliers are highly unlikely to be the farms you imagine when you think of "farmer's markets."  They are probably very large, corporate farms capable of supplying several Wal-Mart stores with produce.  "Farmers" is probably not the correct word to describe these entities.

Second, remember that 80% of what you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT locally sourced.  The vast majority of Wal-Mart's produce is stale and old.. and may have been carted in from another country.  

If you want to support local growers, go to your nearest farmer's market.  Not Whole Foods.  Not Wal-Mart.  

If you would read the sourced articles, you would find that they are doing a decent job of this. They are even putting signs on produce showing what state it's from so you can see if it's farmed within your state. It makes sense for them to source near their distribution centers, especially since they have so many that there is likely one near you, and therefore, fairly local. Snippet from the source:

Wal-Mart considers locally grown produce anything farmed within a state's boundaries. Galberth said customers will soon see signs near produce that indicate it comes from the same state.

...sayin' that somethin' grown in-state is "local" takes on a whole new meanin'.

We're bigger than most countries, ya know.

I did read the source articles. Their new marketing is misleading.  Check out how much they are touting their "local produce", it's ridiculous.

They shouldn't be using the word "local" at all.  It's a huge stretch.  There are only 112 distribution centers. Each serves 75-100 Wal-Mart stores within an average radius of 250 miles.  That means big corporate farms and long rides.

To most people, "local" does not mean 2/3/4/5/6 hours away.  

I wish people would quit being saps.

Wal-Mart is sourcing closer to home to reduce the costs of shipping from the other side of the planet. But the Wal-Mart model is still about destroying real local economies that feed, employ, and sustain real communities.

Wal-Mart is still all about acres of parking, cheap labour, and cheap crap destined for the landfill.

Grow up for God's sake. Your children are inheriting a planet on which life will be very different and far less comfortable and secure. A large part of that is because of the consumer culture we all bought into and the uber consumer culture of gluttony, obesity, and the wanton waste symbolized very appropriately by Wal-Mart.

Next time you see one of their parking lots, think how much local food could have been grown their for your family and neighbours.

I don't like Wal-Mart either -- for all of the thousands of reasons we have heard thousands of times.  Lets just assume we are on the same page for most of those reasons.

In addition to that, though, I might ask you to grow up as well Cyberfarer.  Which of these two scenarios is more likely in the next 20 years?

#1.)  Wal-Mart goes out of business and is shut down, leaving pristine local markets around the world to cater to the local population's every need.

#2.) Because of increasing energy costs and a new carbon tax Wal-Mart realizes that "green" and "greed" are the same thing for them.  the greener they are the more profits they make. Because of their unbelievably huge impact on the economy, even seemingly small actions on their part like:

CFLs posted on end caps of every isle at bargain prices
reducing truck fleet gas use by half
putting new cheap solar panels in the bargain bin at every check-out with the "Get 'er done!" guy in a cardboard cut out pointing at the panels.
buying food from within the state instead of Brazil
cutting its building emissions in half

ALL of these things bringing them higher profits, AND just through sheer coverage, muscle power, and numbers, having a significant impact on total U.S. emissions.  

I hate Wal-Mart, but from a practical point of view (and really at this point in the game what other point of view can we have?) we can capture their greed and make it our tool for societal transition.  Wal-Mart makes BIG things happen FAST with MANY people.

Wal-Mart can make more Americans go green without even realizing it before one-thousand Sierra Clubs ever could.  And speed of change, and volume of change, are what this is about when speaking of climate change.

What did you think the benefit of a carbon tax was anyway???  It steers the greed juggernaut towards green.  

Sometimes we just wont like the window dressing around the tools we will use for the transition.  So be it.  Hold your nose.

I live in Ontario, Canada where we too have the rapacious Walmart.  Of course this latest ploy is to cut transportation costs and to perhaps tangentially, appeal to consumers' concerns about local sustainability.  We have had, to my knowledge, no similar announcement.  I boycott Walmart whose inventory ends up quickly in landfills.  I'll continue to buy local organic produce directly from local farmers even though I'm on a fixed income.  I select my purchases with an close eye on my food budget and savour mightily what I can afford.

A company, good or bad, having a "latest ploy to cut transportation costs" is a good thing.

Now lets hope gasoline prices go up another dollar as well.

I think everybody's pretty much got the idea about the Wal Mart version of "local." I would just like to add that buying from truly local, small farm, farmer's market type growers keeps your money in your hometown and you can influence your local growers as far as what to grow, how to grow, when to grow, etc. Also, any time you have a middleman (WalMart) some of the money (probably a lot) goes in their pocket. Another reason to spend the money close to home.

WalMart is loyal first, last and always to their shareholders - Amen. However they can make the most money for the corporation is all they are about. Do not kid yourself.

And it's not a matter of holding your nose. The means ARE the end.

Am I being heard correctly?

It is EXACTLY because we know of Wal-Mart's motivation that we can make them a tool for the fast and substantial change of many, many ignorant people who are not going to do the right thing on their own.

It may be cynical, and it may be elitist, but I dont think you are going to get the millions and millions of people out of Wal-Mart in 20 years.  I think they are too under-educated and selfish.

But if the bargain bins at all of the Wal-Marts in the world are telling these masses that this here $5 solar panel is going to knock off 25% of their electric bill, THEN you have MASSIVE movement QUICKLY.

All of this movement also requires a price on carbon, of course.

Do you guys understand the difference between what we would LIKE to see happen in the future and what our tools actually are, here in front of us?

Christopher,

While you make some valid points, you never address the consumerist culture that Wal-Mart encourages and causes.  (Not that Wal-Mart was an original cause of overconsumption, that existed well before Wal-Mart.)  Overconsumption is one of the root causes of all significant environmental and ecological problems.  So, Wal-Mart can NEVER be green, because it's main function is to make money by getting people to buy cheap crap they don't need, and which they wouldn't normally buy if the crap's costs more truly reflected costs that are illegitimately escaped, such as environmental harms and actual or virtual slave labor.

The concept of conspicuous consumption by the public is a given for me.  I didn't address it because I assume that everyone already gets that is a huge part of the problem.

The point that I thought was fresh and new, and one that I give columnists like Thomas Friedman credit for [winces], is this:

Just poo-poing Wal-Mart, which is now done on "auto-pilot" and so easy, and even mainstream these days, skips over the opportunity to change the carbon-behavior of the masses quickly.

How many Wal-Mart shoppers in po-dunk are going to read Mother Earth magazine and get inspired to go to the farmer's market?

By the way, I was in central Arizona recently and I found no farmer's markets.  Arizona MUST have trucked in food from California.

I work as a cashier at the local wal mart. I am an avid Grist reader. I am a vegetarian. I am all about  conservation and lowering consumption. I fish cans/bottles/plastic bags out of the garbage because my coworkers are too lazy to walk one foot to the recycling bins. Drives me crazy. I am a captain of the personal sustainability project and all we have done is make leaves stating what we will do for our health and the health of the environment-no follow up. No meetings. So I am captain of nothing? I think wal mart is a symptom of a larger problem. Not many people seem to care! Seriously. It strikes me odd that my town has a lot of hunters/fishers/campers and yet people don't seem to care about the environment. I wonder how to get people to care. I started working for wal mart because it just seemed like it was providing a service. Now i just feel guilty because tonight i will go make money at the evil empire. Seriously, how do we get people to care about the environment?

Green Girl asked,
"Seriously, how do we get people to care about the environment?"

Put a cost on it.

Put a cost on it.

Put a cost on it.

Money talks:  Gasoline goes up a dollar a gallon and SUV sales go down 30%.  The evidence is before us in today's headlines.

In Los Angeles, the financial rate of returned recycling is good, so literally hundreds of folks down on their luck scour every trash bin for anything recyclable and take it to nearby centers for cash.  It's like clockwork -- every day -- every street.  And it happens because a cost was put on it.

I wish it could all happen for moral reasons, but I dont see evidence of that.  Capturing people's self interest with financial reward and punishment seems to be the key.

A carbon tax.  A cap and trade.  Ect.

When people lived on the land (i.e., where they had to at least get their own food and water), they all cared for the natural environment at least to the extent that they didn't want their survival threatened.  Now that the vast majority in developed countries no longer live naturally in any sense, I think the only hope of getting them to care is education.  But I don't just mean intellectual education, I mean getting kids into natural areas by hiking, camping, sailing, canoing, horseback riding, etc.  If kids spend enough time in these areas and are also taught ecology and wildlife biology, which will explain the harms done by modern society and by overpopulation, I think most will care.

christophersj,

I find it refreshing to see some clear thinking. It is always about money! I don't have any problem with Wal-Mart hyping it's "local, Green" changes as it gets the public to think about the problem.

Green girl,
Glad to see you doing something. Do not be discouraged, as example is the best teacher. Working at Wal-Mart is no worse than working at GM. Ford or the Government all of whom has huge carbon foot prints and need to be doing more to build a sustainable world. Keep up the good work.

Environmental change is brought about by political change. The current "two party system" is a cancer on our society. If all the people who are concerned about the environment donated the money that they contributed to political candidates to an environmental organization of their choice the millions of dollars donated would give us environmentalist some real results that you could see and measure. What we get for our dollars from the candidates is just "talk". They are both owned by the corporations and our voices won't be hears.

Farming organically in Ohio

While I avoid Walmart if at all possible (and where I live, sometimes we just have no choice!), 90% of US consumers probably shop their for most of their needs. Most of these people would never even think of shopping at a farmers market. So if Walmart gets them thinking 'local' (even if it is only marginally local), it's doing a good thing. Sure, it's greenwashing. But changing how people think is important, and small steps matter.

People have got to realize that without regulation that NO congress is going to pass, the market is going to have to be a driving force in the transition to a greener society.   People on here are poo-pooing them because they think this is a cynical ploy to cut costs.  So what?  Wal-Mart's motivation is not the point.  It is the end result that matters. Whether it is out of sheer concern for the environment or not does not matter.  This move still means less environmental impact.  And this stuff about it being no big deal that the produce will come from the same state as a distribution center....nutty....  Has anyone looked at where Wal-Mart produce comes from now?  All over North and South America.  

Now, the biggest concern will be to try and get them to use a greater percentage of locally-sourced fruits and vegetables.  But unless the consumer comes to the realization that they can't have the exact fruit or vegetable that they want year-round, that won't happen.

But if the cost, due to rising fuel prices, makes imported or long-distance produce prohibitively expensive for the average Wal-Mart customer, the problem will take care of itself.   More local farmers will be the only game in town because long-distance transport won't be an issue....

Thanks, christophersj, for eloquently and succintly stating the logical and practical perspective. Just because many readers of Grist (myself included) choose to get their produce at a farmers market instead of Walmart produce section, doesn't mean that most Americans do. Most Americans do not
have the option, financial means, time, or motivation to shop at farmers markets. For the millions of people that are going to get their groceries at WalMart anyways, let them buy foods that come with smaller environmental price tags.

And I am surprised that people think that in-state is not local enough. Here in Maryland, even at my health food store and organic foods home delivery service, local means anywhere from New Jersey to North Carolina. In order to get truly local produce, I have to drive past two farmers markets to go to an Amish veggie stand 20 miles away. Now, I do that periodically, but honestly? If Walmart, 1.5 miles away has in state produce, I'll take that over North Carolina produce or over driving 20 miles for the same produce any day.

I was intrigued by the statement "one-fifth of available produce in Wal-Mart stores is sourced locally".  What is the meaning of "available" in that context?  If it were simply one-fifth of produce, it would say so.

I looked at the cited sources, and found no backup for the one-fifth number.  In fact, in one of the articles, I found that the Wal-Mart rep had specifically declined to state a percentage.

Definitions of "local" and "farmer" notwithstanding, what's the definition of "available"?

I hope they aren't using this as a marketing campaign, but if they really are doing this, it's great!

Get over it folks!  Wal-Mart started out as a one store LOCAL firm.  So you Wal-Mart haters want to condemn incentive, productivity and success.  You'd fit in much better in North Korea. If your local farmers market turned into another Conagra Foods, would you put them down too?  Just remember, if it weren't for the small companies that knew what they were doing and how to do it well, you wouldn't be putting comments in here via a computer. You'd be scratching them on a piece of stone and sending them with a runner to be posted ouside a neighborhood cave.  Wake up!  Wal-Mart didn't get as big and as successful as it is by itself.  Customers made it the success that it is.  And consumers aren't customers of businesses they don't like.