Skip to content or view screen version

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.

Keith Farnish
- Homepage: http://www.theearthblog.org

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

fuck green capitalism

17.11.2007 19:11

Heh, isn't this reflective of the whole environmental movement and the way it's being co-opted by ngo's and middle class careerists?

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

Those who have spent the time and energy reading Deleuze and Guattari's excellent work "A thousand plateaus" would not be surprised by this emergence of "green" capitalism. Capitalism is a deterritorialising flux - it co-opts, drains the fringes of any intrinsic and autonomous value, recoding it solely in terms of capital's syntax, thereby dragging the fringe into the centre, neutralising it. Ergo - no more threat to the structures over which capital flows freely and easily.

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

What a wonderful situation. Some capitalist who may have some conception of a better world, but is sucked into the present, upsets some ecologist who has a conception of a better past, but could use it for a better future.

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

while we're all waving our reading lists at each other like a willy contest...did i spot the marxist theory of primitive accumulation in that last post? capital wants to civilise the tribes and the happy farmers to exploit them, but marx and chavez and whoever want to do exactly the same, so that they are 'proletarians' and therefore have 'labour power'. crock of shit. even the incomprehensible Deluded Guitarist comment was deeper than that. people are civilised in order to consume the things that they produce. now we do nothing but consume, we don't produce anything. when was the last time you produced something? probably when living in a mud hut for a while...or camping, or some other situation where you got out of the poison of consumer capitalism, and realised "I need a thingy that will let me do..."

anarchoteapot


Just a quick note...

18.11.2007 10:11

The main reason I walked out was pure anger - it was probably that or get up on stage and grab the mic. which would have got me thrown out of a very useful conference and also would have probably brought more people over to RR's side in sympathy. I did notice quite a few people looking surprised as I walked towards the back - if I woke a few people from their slumbers then that must be a good thing (though, as I said, it wasn't my initial intention).

K.

Keith Farnish
- Homepage: http://www.theearthblog.org


Nothin green about Innocent

19.11.2007 14:15

There is nothing remoting 'green' or 'ethical' about Innocent, they are just a large fruit smoothie corporate who practice greenwash in branding themselves as somehow 'good'.

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