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 (no, you can’t have a link) 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
www.theearthblog.org
www.greenseniors.org