Shoe throwing & pot beating

Funny how things catch on. Following shoe throwing political protests in India and also the famous one thrown at Bush in Iraq, yesterday shoes were thrown at the Fortis shareholder meeting, protesting at the sale of the bank to BNP Paribas.



Does anybody know if this is a traditional form of protest, like beating pans and pots (recently revived in Iceland outside their returning parliament)?

Soundtrack to Friday

Earth Day Hymn

By Ben Okri (an extract of one of his poems)

You can't remake the world
Without remaking yourself
Each new era begins within.
It is an inward event,
With unsuspected possibilities
For inner liberation.
We could use it to turn on
Our inward lights.
We could use it to use even the dark
And negative things positively.
We could use the new era
To clean our eyes,
To see the world differently,
To see ourselves more clearly.
Only free people can make a free world.
Infect the world with your light.
Help fulfill the golden prophecies
Press forward the human genius.
Our future is greater than our past.

We are better than that.
We are greater than our despair.
The negative aspects of humanity
Are not the most real and authentic;
The most authentic thing about us
Is our capacity to create, to overcome,
To endure, to transform, to love,
And to be greater than our suffering.
We are best defined by the mystery
That we are still here, and can still rise
Upwards, still create better civilisations,
That we can face our raw realities,
And that we will survive
The greater despair
That the greater future might bring.

(From "Mental Fight - an anti-spell for the 21st century")

Ben Okri also wrote a poem recently on twitter (a line of poetry a day) story here and the actual full poem' I sing a new freedom' is there

New Column for Mediacat (Turkey)

Food, It’s the New Energy

Food is back at the top of the global political agenda. The new G8 meeting communiqué tells us that we are failing against their agreement (called the Millennium Goals) to halve global hunger. Over one billion are hungry today. And the world’s food stocks are roughly identical to the amount of food currently in transit. In other words we have none. So when there are droughts, floods and storms the result is a price spike. Last year the price of rice doubled within a few months, leading to hoarding, queues and guards with machine guns on warehouses. And droughts, floods and storms will be an increasing feature as climate change continues. The UK chief scientist (Beddington) called this ‘the perfect storm’; a crisis in food, energy, climate that will hit by 2030 if we don’t act now.

Food is also, some say, ‘the new energy’. Agriculture, soil degradation, deforestation (due to clearing land for agriculture because of soil degradation) and the energy it takes to drive a global supply chain– according to environmentalist James Lovelock these account for 50% of global warming. As well as wind farms we must also pay attention to the farms. And 30 year studies of soil show that if we stop blitzing farms with chemicals, the soil can become a massive carbon sink, possibly the biggest carbon solution we have. Innovations such as biochar (the Aztec ‘black gold’) using carbon as a natural fertiliser are gripping people today with as much excitement as solar power did five years ago. Entrepreneur Craig Sams for one, the founder of ‘Green & Blacks’ and regarded by many as the ‘Richard Branson of wholefoods’, has now put everything behind biochar.

Meanwhile in the supermarkets, all is not well. The average person in America eats over 1kg of sugar per week. Over 1kg!!! (statistics from the US Department of Agriculture). Most of it is hidden in Coca-Cola, bread, sauces and cereals. And the food industry is sick too. The demand has been saturated. People literally cannot eat any more of this junk. And now the recession and price war are biting. The industry is in desperate idea of a new idea, or it faces bankruptcy sooner than its farmers who are also struggling.

What can get us out of this mess? Simple. Innovation. Make food the new cleantech. Start putting the new ideas (many of them old ideas) into practice at scale. Don’t believe the propaganda from the agrichemical business by the way. Hundreds of independent studies show that yields from organic agriculture are actually higher than conventional agriculture. And it also takes 1/3 less energy. Because the land is growing the food (rather than petrol and petrochemicals). But organic is just one small part of this.

Why am I telling you this? Because none of this will get anywhere unless we tackle the consumer’s hunger to learn. We need them to reconnect with how our food is grown and what it means, for us and for the earth. We need them to demand better. And brand campaigns and marketing can help. Not just the old ‘eco labels’ (don’t worry city boy, leave it us to us). But substantial education programmes using tools like documentaries, wikipedia style information. Several producers in the USA (one for bananas, another for wheat) allow you to use the internet to ‘visit’ the farm where your food was grown.

I know the food in Turkey is amazing, wholesome, fresh. And there is some justice in the fact you eat a thousand times better than America. (Maybe you don’t exactly eat a bag of sugar a week anyway). But you are one of the world’s great food producing nations and we need you to lead regenerative farming, and end the destructive cycle of killing the soil and the land. To achieve this we need to create an audience who is more literate and demanding about food than they are about computers, films or gadgets. And that dear marketer is our job. If we can save the farm, we can save the world.

Un-signs of the Times.

After Woolworths who is next? Wall Street 24/7's predictions based upon a study of 100 US companies known to be struggling of 12 brands or in some cases, most of whole sectors, that will likely not make it to the end of next year. Here's their list in summary. Via Huffington Post:

1. Avis/Budget car rental
2. Borders books
3. Crocs shoes
4. Saturn cars (GM)
5. Esquire magazine
6. Gap clothing
7. Most other magazines (eg at Conde Nast)
8. Chrysler cars
9. Eddie Bauer retail
10. Palm gadgets
11. AIG financial
12. Airlines & travel

So airlines, cars, fashion, banking, gadgets and consumerism... (Shame about the books though). But seriously though you have to spare a thought for the millions of workers involved and their families.

Policing, or...?

The G20 experience - a view from the rampART via Amelia

The end/start of an era

The Ecologist Magazine announced last week that it is to end printing in June. It will instead go forward as an online journal.




I am personally sad for a number of reasons. One is that it reduces the amount of good stuff we can get into bad places like the major high street outlets where amazingly the Ecologist is stocked. Another is, well... just habit and affection for the format. Another is that personally I had forgotten to renew my subscription last year and had got more used to checking it online for free when I wanted to read something like Jules' latest piece on the end of consumerism and so the decision is all my fault. Seriously though it partly is as I had been in there various times over the last five years with all sorts of crackpot ideas to help boost their circulation/influence for several previous generations to the current team (Harry, Jeremy, Tyler...)

Of course we shouldn't feel too sad because now it is an online thing and that's the way the world is going anyway. It is less resource intensive (paper is made from trees, inks, energy, water, oil...) And there is every chance that we can see it become another seven figure audience giant in liberal thought, alongside the Huffington Post, Comment is Free, Treehugger. Although i hope it still keeps the slightly more cookie approach to publishing ideas from the "inspired" sections of society ;)

I am wondering if we could create an extraordinary campaign to support them in their next phase. Just because we like them. And because this is a piece of global heritage - for instance it was their 'Blueprint' edition that started the green party, for one. Lacking the spare imagination headspace/time, just this minute I am at a slight loss as to what this extraordinary demonstration would take. Maybe someone would have an idea.

One thought I had back in the day was to launch a sister organisation called Ecologista, dedicated to critiquing consumer greenwash, government folly & so on with an action a month. Things a bit like the "On May 15 Let's Panic Buy Carrots" facebook group, or ImprovEverwhere - only with a bit of a point to it all. This would have no financial, legal or other link to the Ecologist. It would just be a tribute/slightly wild sister org. Dunno if that would work. Or if they would welcome it either.

Anyway. Meanwhile maybe we could all just give the ecologist some link love & pass it on. :J

(Draft) Article for Sublime Magazine: Renew issue

Renewal and Obsolescence

“People generally in a frightened or hysterical mood are using everything that they own longer than was their custom before.... In the earlier period of prosperity, the American people did not wait until the last possible bit of use had been extracted from every commodity. They replaced old articles with new for reasons of fashion and up-to-datedness. They gave up old homes and old automobiles long before they were worn out, merely because they were obsolete. Perhaps prior to the panic people were too extravagant; if so they have now gone to the other extreme and become rentrenchment-mad. People everywhere are today disobeying the law of obsolescence. They are using their old cars, their old tires, their old radios and their old clothing much longer than statisticians had expected.”

Sound familiar? This was written in 1932 by an underemployed New York real estate agent called Bernard London. His 20-page pamphlet “Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence” gets to the heart of a syndrome, which is back in force today.

London’s suggestion was that the government “assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all products of manufacture… when they are first created” and when this lifetime was up, these objects would be “legally dead”. At this time the owner would be able to surrender that item and in return be paid part of the price of a new one. New products would hence start “pouring forth” from factories again.

I found these quotes in Made to Break by Giles Slade (2005), charting the history of technology and obsolescence in America. Slade commented that this proposed scheme “at first glance seems today like a crackpot version of progressive obsolescence, mixed with a fair measure of technocracy, (but) begins to make a certain kind of workable sense when reread in the contexts of 1930s economic desperation.”

Four years later, Bernard London's big idea seems far from crackpot. The climate of fear which London described is once again sharply evident. A new report by the Mental Health Foundation describes how the numbers living both with generalised fear and anxiety (77%) and diagnosed with anxiety related mental health problems (15%) are increasing rapidly. 63% of those more frightened or anxious than they used to be, say it is because of the current economic situation (well ahead of crime – 53% - and other common fears). Hence people are (exactly as in London’s day) holding their breath on major purchases. They can keep that TV, that coat, that car, that office computer going for another year or two. Why take the risk of being caught short next month? Who knows about job security, client orders? This christmas despite a blizzard of price cutting promotions, food and footwear were the only sectors not to experience sharp declines. When people are buying, they are buying second hand. Charity shops last month reported that they were running out of stock, due to a surge in demand.

The UK car market’s equivalent of christmas is march/april, when the new registrations come out. So the market greeted the latest sales figures (down 30% in march) with something like ‘hysteria’. The UK car industry is imploring the government to introduce a scheme like London proposed. Far from being ‘crackpot’ today, it’s already in operation in Germany. Under the ‘scrappage scheme’ you get a €2500 rebate if you trade in an 10 year old car and buy a new fuel efficient model. Nearly 600,000 have already taken up the offer and Angela Merkel has announced the scheme will now be extended to the end of this year. Okay they haven’t declared 10 year old cars ‘dead’. Not yet.

Nothing could be more encouraging from a sustainability point of view than seeing the frenzy of consumerism abating. Previous Christmas figures had shown that the average child in the UK received £250 worth of presents. Never mind the recession, net imports of carbon – the footprint of manufactured goods, mostly from China – make up the largest single (previously uncounted) component of our national carbon footprint. This year, judged by global oil production and also a sharp fall in Chinese electricity usage, we will likely see a real fall in carbon emissions. Hurrah! The trouble is this decrease is being bought at a price of people living in fear, at a price of jobs in the developing world. And at the price of a feeling of personal obsolescence, living with objects and homes which are decaying, fading, ageing, half working.

What we need to figure out is a way of life which is renewable. Not only in energy terms. But in terms of material flows too. We need to be processing for nature, like the ants, providing services to other species, not tearing up ecosystems at one end and piling them with waste at the other. The UK has about 6 years left of landfill space. Electrical waste is the fastest growing part of the UK waste stream, 1.8 million tonnes per year of which 43% are white goods (fridges and similar) and 39% are computers. 12.5 million computers have gone to landfill in the last 5 years. Landfills are now starting to be ‘mined’ for valuable metals, because it is cheaper than mining ores. But even so.

Culturally we also need to live in a world which is renewed. A key cultural function of design is to make time visible. It marks the years. The decades. It isn’t just an invention of 'Madmen' (the demonised architects of consumerism). You see a constant flow of fashions in artefacts in historical societies; one study for instance by anthroplogist Mary Douglas looked at ceramics in the Chinese imperial courts, finding annual and generational fashion shifts at least as pronounced as today. Renewal seems to be as innate a human need as open spaces and contact with nature. We cant suppress it. When we try we make environmentalism the drab, joyless choice. In our own lives we renew ourselves, and refresh our feeling of being in the flow, keeping up with the times, by incorporating fashions in clothes and artefacts. I’ve reached a stage in life when this seems less needed. But I can see as a result that I am starting on a journey towards my mother’s age, with the same clothes, the same furnishings from one decade to the next, a gentle cultural acceptance of the ageing process. Some studies have shown in fact that reminding people about death (“mortality salience”) increases consumerist desires for high status products and materialistic possessions. To be in this flow is to be fleeing decline and mortality. Although the same paper (Lee & Shrum, 2008) also pointed to evidence that remembering your approaching death can also increase the openness to having your worldview challenged.

How can we create a world that we actually want to move forward to? A positive dream, and a progressive one; rather than accepting decline, decay and descent? How can we meet the human need for renewal, without oceans of waste and the wanton destruction of what is left of the natural habitat? There are brilliant businesses (like WornAgain) which make new fashion out of old materials – uniforms, parachutes, old plane seats. And others which sit in the waste stream collecting electricals (like RUSZ in Austria) and building waste (like the UK’s REiY) to repair or repurpose. That’s a start. There is also the ‘cradle to cradle’ philosophy of designing not for future landfill, but for future uses, ‘upcycling’. Like the Aeron eco chair. That’s a start too. But these are only a start. They are about doing less harm, but – despite the claims to have escaped this trap by the ‘cradle to cradle’ founders – they still use energy and consume the world. There will I hope be more fundamental design ‘solutions’ but those will come when we redefine the problem. It’s not about waste. It is about how to renew ourselves, renewably?

The central feature of modern life which we need to redesign (not just renew, but scrap and replace) is the economy. The reasons why weare caught in the same double bind as in 1932 is the race against debt, free market speculation and unemployment. If we can design an economy which doesn’t need excessive growth to avoid death, only then we can address the human needs. We are hitting the natural limits of this growth. We are running out of world. Even in its own terms, the growth engine is now broken, probably beyond repair.

My own hope for channelling these needs is that we can mark the progress in our lives through a social revolution rather than a passive collection. That turning a lawn into a farm, joining a local band of citizens in a Transition Town or a We20 group, starting a truly sustainable business… that these will become ‘the pictures in our scrapbooks’ by which we will see our lives keeping pace with others’. That we will be swept up in another much broader and longer lasting ‘1960s’ of consciousness-raising, love making and better parties. That we will focus more on worldmaking, and less on homemaking.

But we will still arrive at each new year, and feeling the sun on our skin, will be inspired into spring-cleaning our lives. What to do with these urges to self renewal? Here’s my own crackpot suggestion. Give every citizen free art and craft classes. Help them do more than make do and mend – putting up with drab, depressing, declining homes. Bring the social production revolution that’s already made millions into amateur journalists (ie bloggers) to design. Don’t buy a new car. Paint your old one. Don’t decorate your home, enliven it with ideas from your inner world. We’ll all have a little more time this year for hobbies. Let’s enjoy it.

Joel's Annual Roundup

No it's not a rodeo themed Easter event, it's Joel Makower's annual pre-earth day summary of many and various recent US green consumer research reports. My favourite stat is that Walmart (based on consumer perceptions) tops both the list of the most and the least environmentally responsible companies. By the way here's another plug for Joel's excellent book: If you havent read it yet, you should :J

Interview for V-Marketing (China)

1. For the coming Earth Day (4•22), companies like the Timberland launch campaigns to spread their values of environmental advocacy and concern, and to advertise their green credentials. Do you think this marketing strategy effective? Why and why not?

Earth Day itself is not that big a deal, certainly in Europe (it is more of an event in America I believe). Some environmentalist are anti the idea of having one day when we focus on the Earth and 364 days when we go back to business as usual. But it is a media event and brands like Timberland can get more attention on those days. Rather like an American brand advertising during their Superbowl.

Whether it is credible to market your green credentials is another matter. Surveys show that Western consumers are increasingly choosing retailers and brands who they believe have superior environmental policies and practices. One recent survey in the UK found that 60% were doing this as much as before the recession and 20% were doing it even more than before the recession. The message seems to have sunk in.

Timberland has one of the best environmental stories in its market. For a boot maker it is quite extraordinary. I saw their CEO give a speech and was stunned by what they are doing at their factories and in their sourcing to reduce their carbon and ecological footprint. What Timberland do, which is smart, is label their products to tell you about this (rather like you would with food ingredient labels). I think that sort of approach is much more effective than the big TV advertising campaign which some American brands go in for. The word we use for that is ‘greenwash’.

Surveys show that people believe objective information (from journalists, certifying bodies) rather than company advertisements saying they are environmentally friendly. It's a bit different in the USA because so many brands are shouting about it, if you dont they assume you are not doing anything. In Europe companies are much more cautious about making these sorts of claims themselves. They know they will be questioned by campaigners and journalists, and they are not perfect.


2. Can you briefly explain how environmentalism transforms marketing strategy?

Innovation and education. You have to invent smarter products, services, processes to make a big difference to the total impact of your products. And you have to teach people to adopt it and trust it. A typical example is moving from selling fashionable handbags to renting them. There is a company in America which did exactly that. It meets the same needs, with a better price, and a much better environmental performance. It is even ‘cool’ because its innovative.

3. Why should marketers be pushing sustainability? What are the positive aspects of green marketing for businesses?

The main reason is we face an environmental catastrophe on a scale that probably hasn’t happened since human beings evolved 2 million years ago if we do not redesign our societies and industries very fast. Marketing can play a key role because we are very good at selling people new dreams. And also the side of marketing that is able to help innovation through insight into people’s lives. We can help people feel good about being part of this revolution. And we can find a good way through it. But it is nothing to do with what is good for marketing. If we don’t sort this out there will be no markets by 2030.

4. You once said, “Marketers have a key role to play in influencing the market and consumers to change their habits.” What do you mean by that? Can you give us an example to show how marketers can do that?

In most markets the key impact is not manufacture but usage. For instance with the motor car 27% of the impact is manufacture (and disposal) and 73% is driving. Marketing can persuade people what to drive, when to drive, how to drive. I have just been working on a project with the UK government for an advertising campaign all about that. In China, Beijing can tell people days when they cannot use their car. In the UK we have to persuade people to use their car less, to share journeys, to use other means for short journeys, to drive a smaller car. All of these things are good for the driver too, because they improve air quality and can save them a lot of money on fuel. But we need marketing to change people’s habits, to bring those ideas to their attention.


5. How will the current recession influence marketing strategy, especially green marketing?

The key message is ‘saving money, saving the world’. Because of the cost of materials and fuel the two do very often coincide. For a few years in the West ‘green’ became a luxury, fashion issue. Those sorts of markets are struggling. The recession brings necessity but there are still many opportunities.

6. What are the watch-outs for green marketing?

Don’t over promise and under deliver.
Don’t highlight one small detail and ignore the bigger picture of other problems.
Don’t try to treat it like a trend – this is not something you ‘exploit’ it is something to catch up with.
Don’t claim to be perfect (you aren’t, the best is you are trying).
Don’t forget the little things – it doesn’t all have to be big or showy. Don’t ‘sell’ this issue, invite customers to work with you together. Maybe even collaborate with your competitors.

Real World News

Have just about finished (first) drafting the (really heavy - but dont worry it's otherwise a very hopeful book :) first section of my new book. Here are a couple of graphs that really make you think about why is it that the news doesn't actually report what is happening in the world.

The first shows numbers of disasters annually over the last century, the growth mainly comes from weather related events.

On the natural disaster "reported" thing we obviously just dont see most of it. Here is a youtube video showing thedamage caused after a collapsing dam (after heavy rain) in Indonesia two weeks ago described locally as like another Tsunami. The BBC say it killed 'dozens'. Locally they say it killed 100 people - compared to for instance 275 in the Italian quakes. Full story via global voices online, which actually does report the real world news. It's all out there we just need to find ways to take it in.

The second graph shows that 97% of households globally earn less per day than the cover price of the book I am writing (in American $ buying power equivalent - so you have to imagine having that much money to pay for food shelter warmth etc in the USA - and did you actually know that when people say 'a dollar a day' as the extreme poverty level they mean the spending power a dollar a day would have in the USA, the local currency figure is MUCH lower? I didnt).

Green is officially no longer "the new black"

via hippshopper. It's actually quite hard to see this as a bad thing. Not buying stuff you dont need (just because it's in fashion or cool or a celebrity does it or...) is now the new green?

Is this for Real?

My first reaction when I saw this (via Peter Shield) was this had to be a spoof, something from Plane Stupid or the Tescopoly mob. But then I followed the link back to Ed from Futerra's blog at the Guardian and once I checked the date (ie not 1st April) I had to accept it was probably real. An absolute collectors item anyway. Misjudged to a tee.

Two Stories about a 15% Stake

THE BBC (a neutral to positive story)

Coca-Cola has bought a £30m stake in Innocent, the British fruit drink and "smoothie" maker renowned for its ethical ethos.
Innocent says the minority investment will allow further European expansion. Co-founder Richard Reid said: "Every promise that Innocent has made - about making only natural healthy products, pioneering the use of better, socially and environmentally-aware ingredients, packaging and production techniques, donating money to charity and having a point of view on the world - will remain. We'll just get to do them even more."

THE GUARDIAN (the 'sellout' line)

"Innocent, the defiantly non-corporate maker of fruit smoothies, juices and veg pots, has finally lost its innocence after selling a stake to US giant Coca-Cola for £30m....The sale of the stake marks a watershed moment for the 10-year-old company as it becomes the latest high profile success story to sell-up to a corporate giant....When asked if Coca-Cola had an option in the future to take a controlling stake in the company, Reed would not be drawn beyond saying that "nothing is definite in the future but of course both sides hope the relationship will prosper"."

WHICH VIEW WILL PREVAIL?

In 'buzz terms' probably the Guardian one, it's too archetypal a story - David takes payment from Goliath PLC. The internal reality at innocent - nice people working hard to build something they believe in - has always been slightly at odds with the fanatical following externally. They were completely caught out by the public reaction to their announcement they were going to be trialing selling innocent in a few McDonalds outlets. It was mystifying in some senses (for all I know they are also for sale in Shell garages - it might even be illegal to turn down a retailer on political grounds?) But it made perfect sense in cultural terms as people didn't like to see the lamb lying down with the wolf. Coca-Cola is another one of those sorts of brands. Coca-Cola was boycotted by many students unions from about 2003, although there are some doubts today over whether the reasons (Columbian human rights concerns and Indian water concerns) were valid.

I think the question is whose brand is it today and tomorrow. If as its £100m sales suggest it is the mainstream brand of healthy stuff for mums or office workers, the Coca-Cola connection would barely raise an eyebrow. If the original loyal following of more idealistic canvas shoe wearing hippy types still plays a pivotal role (or their public upset over this could) then it's a different story. My suspicion is that media like the Guardian will push the second view, but probably - honestly - nobody will give enough of a damn with everything else going on in the world and the next Ben & Jerry's type global brand will be born. My real concern is just how badly Coke marketers have screwed up brands like this in the past (think Fruitopia) but at least at this stage their almost unerring talent for inauthenticity will be kept well out of Fruit Towers. :J

Declaration of interest: I am very interested in this brand. (Oh and I did some work for them once, which was nice. From which point of view I do obviously wish them well with all of this too :)

Draft Article for the Marketer

Why Buy Organic?

This is the question the market seems to have been asking over the last year. My feeling is that it needs to switch from ‘good for you’ (a luxury) to ‘good for the planet’ (a necessity).

According to TNS data for the year to February 2009, organic foods have seen an average decline of 20%. Organic bread has fallen 31%, fruit by 16.5% and vegetables by 10%. According to Ed Garner of TNS "A lot of this boils down to money. Premium food is under pressure and the ones that shout value are doing well. Many organic products are seen as too expensive." It would be interesting to look at the relative price data. The impression you get in the supermarket is that organic food is about the same price as it was last year, but all around it the panicky recession busting offers might be switching customers for no other reason than price. It’s interesting that bread has been hit hardest because this is where supermarkets do tend to hammer price promotions hardest. (There was a point in the 1990s when pig farmers started buying supermarket bread by the trolley load. as it had become the cheapest feed available!)

Most people will be aware that organic certification means growing crops without artificial pesticides, fertilizers or sewage sludge; raising animals fed on organic crops, without routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones; and that organic foods have to be artificial additive and preservative free, and (in the UK) GM free too. The conclusion of all of this – which is focused on food constituents – is that it has become positioned in people’s minds as untainted and hence healthy. The definitive organic category has for several decades been organic baby food, for obvious practical and psychological reasons.

This is actually true to the origins of organic farming. The pioneers of the Soil Association originally set their store out in the post war years behind the health benefits of “compost grown food” as opposed to that from chemical fertilizers. It was only in the 1960s, with “Silent Spring” that the environmental impact of chemical pesticides in particular became the focus of the environmental movement – a horror of poisoning wild creatures and habitats. And from then until the late 1980s when organic produce was the stock in trade of the whole foods store, this ‘green’ benefit was uppermost.

Today it is increasingly apparent that the style of agriculture originally promoted by the organic movement (less industrialized, with minimum off farm inputs) is absolutely critical for climate change. There is recent research showing that fungi in the soil (mychorrhiza) can lock away carbon in the soil for up to 1000 years – a fungi that is killed by chemical fertilisers. Various studies have concluded that healthy soil can be a carbon sink (one Australian study said that restoring the fertility of the world’s soil could absorb similar amounts of carbon as is emitted by transport). And less intensive industrial farming processes overall will be needed, not only because we may well run short of affordable oil, but because according to James Lovelock, fossil fuel used “in growing, gathering, selling and serving food adds up to half of all carbon emissions”.

How would this help organic sales? The evidence is that more people than ever are willing to buy goods that protect the environment. A recent survey commissioned by the Carbon Trust found “62% of consumers saying environmental concerns influence their purchasing decisions ‘the same as a year ago’ and just over a quarter saying they influence them ‘even more’ than in 2008.” The messages about climate change in particular really seem to be sinking in. One result is that recently a Unilever spokesperson reported they were even seeing a shift from taking baths to taking showers. This is the sensibility that organic food might be better pushing; not that it is healthy “for me” in the way a spa retreat might be, but that it is vital (probably more so than renewable energy, based in Lovelock’s figures) in the global effort to combat climate change.

I’ll give the last word to Justin King chief executive of Sainsbury's, reported in the Independent (29.03.09) “customers were increasingly concerned with animal welfare and husbandry standards but organic food producers had not done a good job in communicating what it ‘stood for’.” Perhaps it’s time for organic to say it stands for saving the earth?