stock FSC-certified wood in all its stores. This was a major victory for sustainable forestry and political consumerism. Such gains, however, should not obscure some inherent difficulties with the big box retailers. Compared to their total volume of sales and profits, their environmental measures amount mainly to greenwashing and public relations. There are definite limits to how far they can go to green their product line, since their very economies of scale discourage the use of local resources and the establish of tight closed-loops. Most importantly, they encourage urban sprawl and tend to suck capital out of local communities, putting undue pressure on more community-based firms (Yost, 2001). Nevertheless, they are susceptible to small changes in demand, and so somewhat responsive to public pressure. Community, environmental groups and green builders are probably wise to develop an aikido strategy of working with and redirecting the development of the big box retailers, while at the same time seeking to create more space for local green retailers. To do this, green labelling and directory programmes have to be better developed, and action on reuse and deconstruction advanced. Local economic measures also have to be instituted to make sure that capital and jobs remain in the community. If the big box retailers are to survive in green communities, they will have to evolve into true community businessespossibly a contradictory and impossible task. Even in a green economy, certain economies of scale will be useful and desirable. But the essence of big retailing today is growth and low-price. If full costs were to be fully incorporated in product prices, could the big box retailers survive? If incentives for quality of work life, dematerialization of production, and standard of living were implemented in regional economies, would Home Depot have a place? In a construction