BUY MY FOOD at Walmart? No thanks. Until recently, I had been to exactly one Walmart in my life, at the insistence of  a friend I was visiting in Natchez, Mississippi, about 10 years ago. It was one of the sights, she said. Up and down the aisles we went, properly impressed by the endless rows and endless abundance. Not the produce section. I saw rows of prepackaged, plastic-trapped fruits and vegetables. I would never think of shopping there. Not even if I could get environmentally correct food.

Walmart’s move into organics was then getting under way, but it just seemed cynical—a way to grab market share while driving small stores and farmers out of business. Then, last year, the market for organic milk started to go down along with the economy, and dairy farmers in Vermont and other states, who had made big investments in organic certification, began losing contracts and selling their farms. A guaranteed large buyer of organic milk began to look more attractive. And friends started telling me I needed to look seriously at Walmart’s efforts to sell sustainably raised food.

Really? Wasn’t this greenwashing? I called Charles Fishman, the author of The Wal-Mart Effect, which entertainingly documents the market-changing (and company-destroying) effects of Walmart’s decisions. He reiterated that whatever Walmart decides to do has large repercussions—and told me that what it had decided to do since my Natchez foray was to compete with high-end supermarkets. “You won’t recognize the grocery section of a supercenter,” he said. He ordered me to get in my car and find one.

He was right. In the grocery section of the Raynham supercenter, 45 minutes south of Boston, I had trouble believing I was in a Walmart. The very reasonable-looking produce, most of it loose and nicely organized, was in black plastic bins (as in British supermarkets, where the look is common; the idea is to make the colors pop). The first thing I saw, McIntosh apples, came from the same local orchard whose apples I’d just seen in the same bags at Whole Foods. The bunched beets were from Muranaka Farm, whose beets I often buy at other markets—but these looked much fresher. The service people I could find (it wasn’t hard) were unfailingly enthusiastic, though I did wonder whether they got let out at night.

During a few days of tasting, the results were mixed. Those beets handily beat (sorry) ones I’d just bought at Whole Foods, and compared nicely with beets I’d recently bought at the farmers’ market. But packaged carrots and celery, both organic, were flavorless. Organic bananas and “tree ripened” California peaches, already out of season, were better than the ones in most supermarkets, and most of the Walmart food was cheaper—though when I went to my usual Whole Foods to compare prices for local produce, they were surprisingly similar (dry goods and dairy products were considerably less expensive at Walmart).  Walmart holding its own against Whole Foods? This called for a blind tasting.

I conspired with my contrarian friend James McWilliams, an agricultural historian at Texas State University at San Marcos and the author of the new Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly. He enlisted his friends at Fino, a restaurant in Austin that pays special attention to where the food it serves comes from, as co-conspirators. I would buy two complete sets of ingredients, one at Walmart and the other at Whole Foods. The chef would prepare them as simply as possible, and serve two versions of each course, side by side on the same plate, to a group of local food experts invited to judge.
I STARTED LOOKING into how and why Walmart could be plausibly competing with Whole Foods, and found that its produce-buying had evolved beyond organics, to a virtually unknown program—one that could do more to encourage small and medium-size American farms than any number of well-meaning nonprofits, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with its new Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food campaign. Not even Fishman, who has been closely tracking Walmart’s sustainability efforts, had heard of it. “They do a lot of good things they don’t talk about,” he offered.

The program, which Walmart calls Heritage Agriculture, will encourage farms within a day’s drive of one of its warehouses to grow crops that now take days to arrive in trucks from states like Florida and California. In many cases the crops once flourished in the places where Walmart is encouraging their revival, but vanished because of Big Agriculture competition.

Ron McCormick, the senior director of local and sustainable sourcing for Walmart, told me that about three years ago he came upon pictures from the 1920s of thriving apple orchards in Rogers, Arkansas, eight miles from the company’s headquarters. Apples were once shipped from northwest Arkansas by railroad to St. Louis and Chicago. After Washington state and California took over the apple market, hardly any orchards remained. Cabbage, greens, and melons were also once staples of the local farming economy. But for decades, Arkansas’s cash crops have been tomatoes and grapes. A new initiative could diversify crops and give consumers fresher produce.

As with most Walmart programs, the clear impetus is to claim a share of consumer spending: first for organics, now for locally grown food. But buying local food is often harder than buying organic. The obstacles for both small farm and big store are many: how much a relatively small farmer can grow and how reliably, given short growing seasons; how to charge a competitive price when the farmer’s expenses are so much higher than those of industrial farms; and how to get produce from farm to warehouse.
Walmart knows all this, and knows that various nonprofit agricultural and university networks are trying to solve the same problems. In considering how to build on existing programs (and investments), Walmart talked with the local branch of the Environmental Defense Fund, which opened near the company’s Arkansas headquarters when Walmart started to look serious about green efforts, and with the Applied Sustainability Center at the University of Arkansas. The center (of which the Walmart Foundation is a chief funder) is part of a national partnership called Agile Agriculture, which includes universities such as Drake and the University of New Hampshire and nonprofits like the American Farmland Trust.*

To get more locally grown produce into grocery stores and restaurants, the partnership is centralizing and streamlining distribution for farms with limited growing seasons, limited production, and limited transportation resources.
 Walmart says it wants to revive local economies and communities that lost out when agriculture became centralized in large states. (The heirloom varieties beloved by foodies lost out at the same time, but so far they’re not a focus of Walmart’s program.) This would be something like bringing the once-flourishing silk and wool trades back to my hometown of Rockville, Connecticut. It’s not something you expect from Walmart, which is better known for destroying local economies than for rebuilding them.

As everyone who sells to or buys from (or, notoriously, works for) Walmart knows, price is where every consideration begins and ends. Even if the price Walmart pays for local produce is slightly higher than what it would pay large growers, savings in transport and the ability to order smaller quantities at a time can make up the difference. Contracting directly with farmers, which Walmart intends to do in the future as much as possible, can help eliminate middlemen, who sometimes misrepresent prices. Heritage produce currently accounts for only 4 to 6 percent of Walmart’s produce sales, McCormick told me (already more than a chain might spend on produce in a year, as Fishman would point out), adding that he hopes the figure will get closer to 20 percent, so the program will “go from experimental to being really viable.”

Michelle Harvey, who is in charge of working with Walmart on agriculture programs at the local Environmental Defense Fund office, summarized a long conversation with me on the sustainability efforts she thinks the company is serious about: “It’s getting harder and harder to hate Walmart.”

“WE SUPPORT LOCAL FARMERS,” read a sign at an Austin Walmart. I didn’t see any farm names listed in the produce section, but I did find plastic tubs of organic baby spinach and “spring mix” greens with modern labeling that looked like it could be at Whole Foods. My list was simple to the point of stark, for a fair fight. Some ingredients seemed identical to what I’d find at Whole Foods. Organic, free-range brown eggs. Promised Land all-natural, hormone-free milk. A bottle of Watkins Madagascar vanilla for panna cotta. I couldn’t find much in the way of the seasonal fruit the restaurant had told me the chef would serve with dessert. But I did find, to my surprise, a huge bin of pomegranates, so I bought those, and some Bosc pears. The sticking points were fresh goat cheese, which flummoxed the nice sales people (we found some Alouette brand, hidden), and chicken breasts. I could find organic meat, but no breasts without “up to 12 percent natural chicken broth” added—an attempt to inject flavor and add weight. I wasn’t happy with the suppliers, either: Tyson predominated. I bought Pilgrims Pride, but was suspicious. The bill was $126.02.
At the flagship Whole Foods, in downtown Austin, the produce was much more varied, though the spinach and spring mix looked less vibrant. The chicken was properly dry, a fresh ivory color—and more than twice as expensive as Walmart’s. My total bill was $175.04; $20 of the extra $50 was for the meat.

Brian Stubbs, the tall, genial young manager of Fino, and Jason Donoho, the chef, were intrigued as they helped me carry bag after bag into the restaurant’s kitchen. They carefully segregated the bags on two shelves of a walk-in refrigerator. The younger cooks looked surprised by the Whole Foods kraft-paper bags, and slightly horrified by the flimsy white plastic ones from Walmart.
The next night 16 critics, bloggers, and general food lovers gathered around a long, high table at the restaurant. Stubbs passed out scoring sheets with bullets for grades of one (worst) to five (best) for each of the four courses, and lines for comments.
The first course, bowls of almonds and pieces of fried goat cheese with red-onion jam and honey, was a clear win for Walmart. The Walmart almonds were described as “aromatic,” “mellow,” “pure,” and “yummy,” the Whole Foods almonds as “raw,” though also more “natural”; they were in fact fresher, though duller in flavor. (Like the best of the food I saw at the Austin Walmart, the packaging for the almonds had a homegrown Mexican look.) The second course, mixed spring greens in a sherry vinaigrette, was another Walmart win: only a few tasters preferred the Whole Foods greens, calling them fresher and heartier-flavored. And only one noticed the little brown age spots on a few Walmart leaves, but she was a ringer—Carol Ann Sayle, a local farmer famous for her greens.

So far Walmart was ahead. But then came the chicken, served with a poached egg on a bed of spinach and golden raisins. A woman whose taste I already thought uncanny—she works as an aromatherapist—compared the broth-infused meat to something out of a hospital cafeteria: “It’s like they injected it with something to make it taste like fast food.” I thought it was salty, damp, and dismal. The spinach, though, was another story: even the most ardent brothy-breast haters thought the Walmart spinach was fresher.
Dessert was the most puzzling. I had thought that Walmart’s locally sourced milk and exotic-looking vanilla would be the gold standard, but the Whole Foods house brands slaughtered them (“Kicks A’s ass,” one taster wrote). People couldn’t find enough words to diss the Walmart panna cotta (“artificial, thin”) and praise the Whole Foods one (“like a good Christmas”). I wished I’d bought the identical Promised Land milk at Whole Foods, to see if there is in fact a difference in the branded food products that suppliers give Walmart, as there is in the case of other branded products. The pomegranate seeds, sadly, were wan, with barely any flavor, particularly compared with the garnet gems from Whole Foods. But Walmart got points from the chef, and from me, for carrying pomegranates at all.
As I had been in my own kitchen, the tasters were surprised when the results were unblinded at the end of the meal and they learned that in a number of instances they had adamantly preferred Walmart produce. And they weren’t entirely happy.
IN AN IDEAL WORLD, people would buy their food directly from the people who grew or caught it, or grow and catch it themselves. But most people can’t do that. If there were a Walmart closer to where I live, I would probably shop there.

Most important, the vast majority of Walmarts carry a large range of affordable fresh fruits and vegetables. And Walmarts serve many “food deserts,” in large cities and rural areas—ironically including farm areas. I’m not sure I’m convinced that the world’s largest retailer is set on rebuilding local economies it had a hand in destroying, if not literally, then in effect. But I’m convinced that if it wants to, a ruthlessly well-run mechanism can bring fruits and vegetables back to land where they once flourished, and deliver them to the people who need them most.
March 2010 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE By Corby Kummer

DNREC developed a set of Environmentally Sustainable Super Green logo Development Criteria, also known as “Super Green,” in an attempt to define a set of development principles and provide a Delaware alternative to LEED, Leadership in Environmental Excellence and Design.  While LEED is considered the standard in environmental certification, its different rating systems can be confusing and it is generally considered quite expensive to implement.  Also, LEED-ND, for Neighborhood Design, is still in pilot stage and requires minimum densities that are difficult to achieve outside of Delaware’s largest municipalities.

Super Green focuses on eight facets of development, not just on the individual home:

1. Site location.  Is it in a designated growth area, close to existing infrastructure and services?

2.  Site conservation.  Addresses impacts to critical natural resources including wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, recreation, and forests.  It provides opportunities for protecting and enhancing existing resources and recreational opportunities.

3.  Site design.  Focuses on design elements such as site layout, transportation, amenities and facilities, recreation and utilities.

4.  Streets and parking.  Discusses parking alternatives, reduced street widths, sidewalks, and sidewalk and parking materials.

5.  Stormwater management. Focuses on runoff reduction strategies, innovative and low-impact management practices (green-technology best management practices), and managing discharges.

6.  Site construction.  Encourages a higher level of environmental controls during construction, use of local labor, recycling of resources on site, and type of materials and equipment used.

7.  Landscaping. Addresses type of vegetation that should be used, resource conservation measures, long-term management and maintenance of landscapes and use of community trees.

8.  Building and energy efficiency.  The section encourages builders to build to national certification through the LEED system developed by the Green Building Council or the National Association of Homebuilders green building standards.

Whether it’s a small cottage or a rambling Victorian, renovating old houses is one of the best things homeowners can do for the environment.  If you are going to remodel you’re in a position to have the best of both worlds: a sense of history and a sensibility toward the environment. The principles of sustainable building are easily adapted to period-renovation projects.  This applies whether a structure is sixty years old or several hundred years old.

In the end, the choice to reuse an existing structure instead of demolishing and building new is at the heart of determining a structure’s “sustainable” impact.  Plus you have the satisfaction of knowing that a historic home has been given both the attention and the chance to stand for another century.

Historic preservation is both one of the most inherently “green” professions and one that provides many benefits to towns. While some see efforts at historic preservation merely as exercises in nostalgia and an infringement on property rights, historic preservation can create jobs and strengthen communities.

The following are several sustainable reasons (other than wanting to retain beautiful buildings) for being a supporter of historic preservation.

*            Front and rear porches served dual heat-related purposes for homeowners before the introduction of air conditioning.

In addition, porches provided a sheltered space to sit out of the sun while enjoying the breezes.

*            Windows in older homes were always operable to allow cooling air to enter the home.

*            Screen doors were installed on all exterior doors, again to capture breezes into enter the home.

*            Most doors typically had covered overhangs when not already sheltered by a porch, protecting from rain as well as
sheltering the house from the sun.

These methods are still effective since they take advantage of the inherent good design found in our historic homes.

Central to the discussion of older and historic buildings is the subject of weatherization Since most historic homes need needed some restoration, care must be taken protect the integrity of the historic building while updating aspects of the structure that will provide a comfortable and healthy living space for occupants.

Increasing your home’s energy efficiency does not have to break the bank. There have been a variety of federal- and state-level options available to the owners of older and historic homes and buildings who are looking for financial incentives to undertake larger weatherization and/or rehabilitation projects. Unfortunately in early February, President Obama released his FY 2011 budget request to eliminate funding for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America, and cut funding for National Heritage Areas by 50%.  Assistance continues to be part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program. Every state is now administering over $5 billion in stimulus funds for this program, which was created in 1976 in response to the nation’s first energy emergency.

Many Delaware cities and towns have guidelines in place for renovating older homes located their historic district and Lewes and Milton are two good examples. To address these requirements, homeowners can employ the expertise of local artisans, builders, historians and designers who have extensive experience with remodeling, restoring and adding onto historic properties.

It takes a unique person to appreciate life in an old house since it means entering into a partnership with both the house and the community. It does, however, offer a-once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy an irreplaceable piece of history, a home that has long been part of the fabric of a town.

A few good resources

www.preservationnation.org

www.thisoldhouse.com

www.hgtvpro.com

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — For the first time in almost 15 years, the size of new homes built in the United States is shrinking.

New homes are now 7% smaller — or the size of one average-sized room. To be precise, the median square footage of newly built homes fell to 2,065 square feet in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

This caps off 2008, when home size fell every quarter, marking first year of declines since 1994. That could indicate that the romance between Americans and morbidly obese McMansions has finally cooled.

“A new ethic is arising right now that will become commonplace — as commonplace as is recycling today, when just a few decades ago it was rarely, if ever, done,” said Sarah Susanka, author of the book, “The Not So Big House.”

“As more and more people build or remodel homes that satisfy in quality rather than quantity, there will be a huge shift in what we perceive as desirable.”

She believes the current shrinking trend mimics one of 100 years ago, when simple bungalows supplanted elaborate Victorian homes as the design choice for many Americans.

But, it could also just be the recession.

“Home size gains flatten out or decline during recessions, and we’re in the midst of the most serious housing recession in decades,” said Kermit Baker, the chief economist for the American Institute of Architects.

It’s also hard to know whether the trend is a the result of a change in attitudes or a change in buyers, according to Kira McCarron, the chief marketing officer for Toll Brothers, an upscale homebuilder.

The recession could have led to a temporary turndown in the number of young families buying homes, for example. But when they return to the market, they may drive up McMansion sale again. Meanwhile, older buyers are dominating sales.

“The active adult product is taking a bigger share of the market right now,” said McCarron, leading to more small homes and dragging the average new home-size data down.

She added that some cities, such as Seattle, have instituted “smart growth” plans that encourage development in core areas, leaving large patches of green, undeveloped territory further out.

Since it effectively limits development to a few, already densely populated parts of town, available land in those areas becomes more expensive, sending up the average per-square-foot of new homes. That, of course, discourages McMansion development.

Influencing factors

There are many practical reasons currently at work that favor smaller homes, according to Steve Melman, director for economic services for the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

Affordability: That drives everything, Melman said. People tend to buy as much home as they can comfortably afford and, with the economy in turmoil, they simply don’t feel at ease spending today.

Energy costs: When the price of oil rose to more than $147 a barrel in July 2008, it drove up all the costs of homeownership. Heating and cooling costs soared, but so did electricity costs. And bigger houses have more lights and appliances. Energy costs also contributed to price increases on building materials, making bigger homes that much more expensive to construct.

Aging boomers: Demographics may have contributed to the smaller home trend. More and more aging baby boomers have become empty nesters. Some of them are downsizing, according to Melman.

Tight credit for big mortgages: Jumbo loans needed to pay for these types of houses have been harder to get and more expensive. That would discourage building in this category.

No real sacrifice

But small-home buyers don’t have to sacrifice if the house is well designed, said Susanka. “If you use a room less than six times a year, you don’t need it,” she explained. “Or make it do double duty.”

A rarely used formal dining room, for example, could double as a library. A den could be where the kids do their homework. And do you really need a separate living room, family room and home theater?

“Houses are likely to become better tailored to the way we actually live,” she said. “As more and more people build or remodel homes that satisfy in quality rather than quantity, there will be a huge shift in what we perceive as desirable. Just as the bungalows of a century ago supplanted the Victorian painted lady, ‘Not So Big’ houses are likely to become the sought after alternative to

By Les Christie, CNNmoney.com staff writer
First Published: August 11, 2009: 12:18 PM ET

Lance earned a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Delaware and is a Certified Green Professional through the NAHB Green Building Program. While at the University he worked for Astro Power, now GE Solar. He attributes that experience to developing his passion for building green homes and introducing renewable energy systems with a goal of achieving net zero energy consumption. His early professional work showed him the benefits of renewable energy and conservation. The two pictures are of a Zero Energy home currently under construction in Wolfe Pointe. It will be the first home to be built in Lewes to LEED standards.

The picture of an upcoming, now under construction, In Wolfe Pointe.