Why I Walked Out In Richard Reed Of Innocent Drinks
Keith Farnish | 17.11.2007 18:12 | Culture | Ecology | Globalisation | South Coast
Ok, being uber-cool in jeans, t-shirt and Ugg boots on a stage in front of 300 environmentalists of varying shades is not, in itself, reason to have someone walk out on you, but I did give it at least 2 minutes before I left. Here’s why.
I had spent a day and a half at the 2007 Be The Change conference in London, listening to some brilliant talks from David Wasdell, Rob Hopkins and Stewart Wallis among others; some of the talks made me hopeful, others made me angry -these were the good ones.
Late in the morning Richard Reed of Innocent Drinks stepped out on the stage in the above accoutrements, and started what was essentialy an advertising spiel about himself and the company. Now don’t forget that there were some pretty hard-core anti-corporate people in here, so he would not have been expected to approach his subject in the same way as he would if, say, he was speaking in front of a Corporate “Social Responsibility” (sic.) seminar. He obviously forgot this, and less than two minutes in he presented a slide which said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism Has Won
This is a good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bizarrely, Innocent Drinks are actually a pretty good company as far as companies go, apart from the fact that they sell millions of drinks in small containers. Ok, they are one of the better companies that sell drinks in small containers. Coca Cola are shit. Just so you know where I am coming from.
I saw a shade of pink when I saw that slide. Firstly, capitalism hasn’t “won”, unless you consider “winning” to be sweeping all before it in a toxic cloud and burning the planet as it goes leaving us in the kind of mess that means any future the planet has will probably not involve arcane calculations involving interest rates and margin calls. Second, and for the reasons I have stated, that is not “a good thing”.
Then Richard Reed of Innocent Drinks said:
"If it wasn’t for capitalism we’d probably still be living in mud huts"
This is the kind of person that some environmentalists think is a good guy. So, Mr Reed, which is better in the long run: living in a mud hut (yurt, tipi, stone and turf house or any other low impact dwelling) that is highly sustainable with a minute impact on the environment; or living in a typical industrial society dwelling which in your case probably has a number of cars, a great deal of lighting and appliances, carbon dioxide spewing concrete, perhaps a patio, a swimming pool even, and of course air conditioning?
"we’d probably still be living in mud huts"
Yeh, right on! Why not have a pop at the tribes who live rich, sustainable lives. Their lives are appalling aren’t they? Well, they are now we’ve introduced disease to their homelands. Oh, and convinced them they they need material wealth in order to be happy. And then thrown them out of their homelands because this great capitalist society wanted the wealth buried beneath their feet. And then denied them any rights.
"living in mud huts"
I have friends who live in one-room shacks made from recycled timber. They share things and have communal living spaces, and live in touch with their natural surroundings which they are trying to protect. They are some of the happiest people I know.
I was sitting in the front row. I saw red. I stood up, tutted loudly then stamped my way to the back and walked through the doors.
Late in the morning Richard Reed of Innocent Drinks stepped out on the stage in the above accoutrements, and started what was essentialy an advertising spiel about himself and the company. Now don’t forget that there were some pretty hard-core anti-corporate people in here, so he would not have been expected to approach his subject in the same way as he would if, say, he was speaking in front of a Corporate “Social Responsibility” (sic.) seminar. He obviously forgot this, and less than two minutes in he presented a slide which said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism Has Won
This is a good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bizarrely, Innocent Drinks are actually a pretty good company as far as companies go, apart from the fact that they sell millions of drinks in small containers. Ok, they are one of the better companies that sell drinks in small containers. Coca Cola are shit. Just so you know where I am coming from.
I saw a shade of pink when I saw that slide. Firstly, capitalism hasn’t “won”, unless you consider “winning” to be sweeping all before it in a toxic cloud and burning the planet as it goes leaving us in the kind of mess that means any future the planet has will probably not involve arcane calculations involving interest rates and margin calls. Second, and for the reasons I have stated, that is not “a good thing”.
Then Richard Reed of Innocent Drinks said:
"If it wasn’t for capitalism we’d probably still be living in mud huts"
This is the kind of person that some environmentalists think is a good guy. So, Mr Reed, which is better in the long run: living in a mud hut (yurt, tipi, stone and turf house or any other low impact dwelling) that is highly sustainable with a minute impact on the environment; or living in a typical industrial society dwelling which in your case probably has a number of cars, a great deal of lighting and appliances, carbon dioxide spewing concrete, perhaps a patio, a swimming pool even, and of course air conditioning?
"we’d probably still be living in mud huts"
Yeh, right on! Why not have a pop at the tribes who live rich, sustainable lives. Their lives are appalling aren’t they? Well, they are now we’ve introduced disease to their homelands. Oh, and convinced them they they need material wealth in order to be happy. And then thrown them out of their homelands because this great capitalist society wanted the wealth buried beneath their feet. And then denied them any rights.
"living in mud huts"
I have friends who live in one-room shacks made from recycled timber. They share things and have communal living spaces, and live in touch with their natural surroundings which they are trying to protect. They are some of the happiest people I know.
I was sitting in the front row. I saw red. I stood up, tutted loudly then stamped my way to the back and walked through the doors.
Keith Farnish
Homepage:
http://www.theearthblog.org
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
fuck green capitalism
17.11.2007 19:11
I never thought i'd hear people i know who were fervent anti-capitalists years ago spout liberal crap about global capitalism.
Believe it or not, but there are people out there who don't believe in systemic social/economic change anymore. Instead they seem to have convinced themselves that they're waiting for some kind of environmental apocalypse, like peak oil, or climate change, for 'their' revolution.
As an 'enlightened' little clique they can then disappear up their own arses in some kind of sustainable 'community'. That's a big fuck off to the real agents of social change in capitalism, the working classes and the injustices imposed upon everyone in the global south.
Hope you're pleased with yourselves, it really looks like the ruling class and their now 'green' corporate interests have won.
sign of the times
The flux of capitalism
17.11.2007 20:00
For "green" capitalism to really be "green" they would have to position themselves against the capitalist appropriation of that which challenges the infrastructure, that which has brought us all to the precipice of existence we now face. Capital is not our friend - not now; not ever. It doesn't matter what cutesy and pro-green credentials it wishes to flash at erstwhile consumers. The first test of the ratio of capitalism to "green"-ism is whether or not the object under consideration has to be consumed to be of value. If it has to, then the balance is certainly way in the capitalist side. If not, then it may stand a chance to be considered "green".
Of course, this is only a quick and off-the-cuff analysis.
alfred e neuman
Ah the simplicity of it all
17.11.2007 21:15
Your an idiot if you deny what has happened, because it's the culture you live in now, and your only concept of understanding comes from it. So it would be better if there hadn't been Capitalism?
Now 'mud huts' show the showmanship-dumbing-down of the presenter. Shame, but then he is a successful capitalist. But (as someone living now) I can say living conditions, and the potential to organise and do something more positive about the way we organise society, are far greater than they would have been for me living under the previous regime (Feudalism).
Walking out on some dumbing down showman, who may have had a point later in his speech, what's it worth?
hismat
spot the referencesssssss
17.11.2007 23:57
anarchoteapot
Just a quick note...
18.11.2007 10:11
K.
Keith Farnish
Homepage: http://www.theearthblog.org
Nothin green about Innocent
19.11.2007 14:15
Where's the evidence and what do they do? They don't use 100% recycled plastic in their bottles, the fruit they use isn't fairtrade and they offer no independent assurance on issues such as labour rights in their supply chain or pesticides on the crops etc. They just draw smiley faces on their packaging and make vague references to eco issues - very weak - pure marketeering.
I see no difference between them and coca-cola
Greenwasherspotter