A non-partisan, neutral perspective supporting diversity in the color of water

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Can't see the *Green* through the Smokescreen

The New York Times ran this article on the lost *green* business opportunities in the US due to the ongoing debate over whether or not climate change is real.

The United States was a nearly untouched market with 120 million homes, most of them very energy-inefficient — it was a massive opportunity,” said Bill Rumble, the company’s commercial director, who had recently returned from its new American headquarters.


Many European countries — along with China, Japan and South Korea — have pushed commercial development of carbon-reducing technologies with a robust policy mix of direct government investment, tax breaks, loans, regulation and laws that cap or tax emissions. Incentives have fostered rapid entrepreneurial growth in new industries like solar and wind power, as well as in traditional fields like home building and food processing, with a focus on energy efficiency.


But with Congress deeply divided over whether climate change is real or if the country should use less fossil fuel, efforts in the United States have paled in comparison. That slow start is ceding job growth and profits to companies overseas that now profitably export their goods and expertise to the United States.


A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that while the clean technology sector was booming in Europe, Asia and Latin America, its competitive position was “at risk” in the United States because of “uncertainties surrounding key policies and incentives.”


“This is a $5 trillion business and if we fail to be serious players in the new energy economy, the costs will be staggering to this country,” said Hal Harvey, a Stanford engineer...

What is slowing down the debate? Rainbows!

This article in the New York Times describes the story about the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond who ran a rainbow flag up its flagpole last week.

Jim Strader, a spokesman for the bank, said the bank had fielded hundreds of phone calls and as many e-mails about the flag. The flag, he said, symbolizes “values of being open and inclusive,” and shows that the bank is “a place that doesn’t discriminate.”

A conservative opponent to the flag display argues *...that the bank is a government institution and so should not be displaying a flag that promotes a cause. And now that they are, the argument goes, they have an obligation to other causes*.

Comparable articles, such as this one run in the Richmond Times-Dispatch counter *The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is a private company with a board of directors elected mainly by member banks. It enjoys the free-speech rights of any American corporation*.

What is the point of this discussion to the Rainbow Water Coalition? It comes down to comments made by followers and fellow greywater experts A. Wentworth and P. Evans who have indicated observers pass judgement when they were *caught* wearing the limited edition and globally-coveted Rainbow Water Coalition hats. A. Wentworth indicated many ask about the connection to GLBT causes and water; they are not dissuaded by the inquiries, but rather use it as an ice-breaker for conversations about greywater reuse.

But careful examination of the Rainbow Water Coalition logo and the *rainbow* flag reveal some important differences. First, the RWC logo is based on the seven colors of the rainbow first used in a wiphala by the ancient city of Cuzco, Peru. Second, the RWC logo is a square, not a rectangle, consistent with the use of the native peoples of the Andes. I read that the City of Cuzco is considering changing their flag to avoid the confusion in hopes regain their ancient *identity* rather than the modern connection to the GLBT identity.

Learn some geography before getting too carried away with the smokescreen of labeling identity, folks.

And so one asks what is the connection to *green*, *rainbows*, and greywater?

Greywater is part of the *green* business world. Recalling the New York Times article...Many European countries — along with China, Japan and South Korea — have pushed commercial development of carbon-reducing technologies....where the Asia Tigers are aiming to grab water supply and sewage treatment contracts in a global water market that could top $1 trillion by 2025.

Regardless of where one stands on the climate change debate, the pot-o'-gold at the end of the *rainbow* is simply too real to be lost in the *fog* of the global warming war. Mind the Bin.

* * *

Business is recognizing the role it can play in combatting climate change. Thank God, is all I can say, for there is a desperately urgent need for business to play that role. Your lobbying influence can be substantial, but together, united and in large enough numbers it could prove decisive in turning the tide.~ Prince Charles

No comments:

Post a Comment