In between Reality Checks, perhaps, my colleague Ephraim Schwartz pointed me to a rather excellent article on NYTimes.com titled "The Power of Green." Written by Thomas L. Friedman, the article argues that in order for America to regain its global stature, it needs to assume environmental leadership. Friedman eloquently touches on several arguments for his case. Among them, there's the irony of our country funne Friedman eloquently touches on several arguments for his case. Among them, there’s the irony of our country funneling millions of dollars into the war on terror, while at the same putting millions of dollars into the hands of certain regimes in the Middle East, through oil revenue, that are going toward training and arming anti-American militants. Reducing — or even eliminating — our need for fossil fuels by developing greener alternatives would help solve the problem.He also notes the concerns surrounding the phenomenon global warming, which an increasing number of individuals — even long-time holdouts — are beginning to accept as scientifically-based reality that needs to be addressed. Friedman quotes Stephen Pacala, an ecology professor who leads the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton, as saying that through a combination of clean power technology and conservation, “we have to get rid of 175 billion tons of carbon over the next 50 years — and still keep growing. It is possible to accomplish this if we start today. But every year that we delay, the job becomes more difficult — and if we delay a decade or two, avoiding the doubling or more may well become impossible.”Another challenge in pushing the green agenda and swaying organizations and consumers to use eco-friendlier, more energy-efficient products: the costs of sustainable technology. “Green will not go down Main Street America unless it also goes down Main Street China, India and Brazil. And for green to go Main Street in these big developing countries, the prices of clean power alternatives — wind, biofuels, nuclear, solar or coal sequestration — have to fall to the ‘China price.’ The China price is basically the price China pays for coal-fired electricity today because China is not prepared to pay a premium now, and sacrifice growth and stability, just to get rid of the CO2 that comes from burning coal.”And they way to get the prices of alternative energy down is stricter regulations from the government, as well as greater funding for more R&D in clean technology, to fuel development and innovation. Friedman writes: “The market alone won’t work. Government’s job is to set high standards, let the market reach them and then raise the standards more. That’s how you get scale innovation at the China price. Government can do this by imposing steadily rising efficiency standards for buildings and appliances and by stipulating that utilities generate a certain amount of electricity from renewables … . Or it can impose steadily rising mileage standards for cars or a steadily tightening cap-and-trade system for the amount of CO2 any factory or power plant can emit. Or it can offer loan guarantees and fast-track licensing for anyone who wants to build a nuclear plant. Or … it can impose a carbon tax that will stimulate the market to move away from fuels that emit high levels of CO2 and invest in those that don’t.”There’s much more to Friedman’s article — and again, I urge you to read it — and I agree with just about he has to say. In fact, I’ve touched on some of the points he raises. (His piece has also generated some criticism, in part because he praises nuclear power and clean coal. But I think that’s missing the bigger issue.)But more important, major players in the business world are aware of the problems we’re facing — as well as the opportunities they offer. It’s not just the stereotypical tree-hugger types in tie-dyed T-shirts and hemp shorts demanding respect and love for Mother Nature (a cause I also support, despite my lack of any hemp or tie-dyed attire). Businesses are playing a critical role in driving a green agenda, and not surprisingly, the IT world is among the most vocal. After all, IT companies are major energy consumers, as right now, they’re enduring the pain of ridiculously high energy bills — and the fear of simply not having enough juice in a few years if we don’t start seeing some drastic changes to how we, as a nation, produce and use energy. That’s why tech companies are already working to influence the government, calling for funding and support that can really drive sustainable-technology innovation. And with a major election a year and a half away, I expect we’ll see talk of the green issue getting more coverage as candidates try to sway the electorate, and vise versa. Does our country need to start taking green more seriously? Are we on the right track? Or have we gone overboard? Technology Industry