Green can be blue and red

But I think the beauty of the topic of sustainable IT — developing a more energy-efficient business model through cleaner technologies and practices — is it can appeal to both sides of the political fence: Going green, to me, is about strengthening your business through short- and long-term investment in and planning for cleaner, waste-reducing, money-saving technology. That’s good for the U.S. economy, and it helps out Mother Nature along the way.

I raise this issue because California Senator Barbara Boxer (a Democrat) criticized President George W. Bush (a Republican) today for his not wanting the government to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which have been linked with global warming.

The president has argued that applying regulations to GHGs emissions would put U.S. businesses as a disadvantage as they compete with growing economic superpowers such as India and China. He told reporters last week that “[reducing GHGs is] going to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive, and it’s easier to afford expensive technologies if you’re prosperous.”

According to the LA Times, he also said that “China and India must join the global warming fight. Unless there is an accord with China. … China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.”

Boxer had this to say today at an AMD event: “Since when does any [U.S.] president look to China for environmental leadership? We can’t wait for China. We have to be the moral leaders on this.”

Of course, these are both merely sound-bytes, but my assessment is, they, and other politicians on both sides of the aisle, are missing the bigger picture here, likely in the name of partisan politics.

To the president and those that agree with his stance, I say this: If regulating GHGs is an overall positive move, yet the prices of energy-saving, cleaner technology are too high, help level the playing field (as investors and business have suggested) with incentives and funding for research and development. Think of it as investment in the future of economy as well as the environment, both of which we’re dependent on.

As to the argument that cleaning up our act, so to speak, with GHG regulations wouldn’t make a difference because China and India aren’t curbing their pollution: Well, the obvious reply is, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” And I’m not talking about a moral “wrong” here, either, Senator Boxer. While I agree that being intentionally wasteful and destructive is morally wrong, I think most businesses, as well as the nation as a whole, is less-than-green by circumstance, not because we hate trees and clean air and lizards.

The problem is, we’ve built up an economy that’s mostly dependent on fossil fuels, and the reality is, it’s a tough and potentially costly habit to break, no matter how much the most well-meaning yet cash-strapped CEO might want to. (That’s not to say that some business leaders out there don’t intentionally disregard environmental law for the sake of a buck; certainly they do.)

The reality, though, is that we do need to break free of this carbon-dependent economy of ours, because the current model isn’t working. And sticking to a bad plan just because a competitor is doing it (e.g. India and China) strikes me as short-sighted. Wouldn’t it make more sense to sow the seeds for a cleaner-technology-based economy and address today’s power concerns before they blossom into tomorrow’s power crises? And a power crisis would surely put us at a severe disadvantage against the likes of China and India, whereas being world leaders of clean technology innovation could push us ahead of the pack.

Taking the more unfamiliar greener path isn’t easy, especially if you have one person shoving you from behind and telling you to hurry up — even though the path is hazy and you lack the rations to move so fast; meanwhile someone else is telling you that if you take another step, you’re bound to fall off a cliff — even if the cliff is really 20 feet away and easy enough to avoid, with some planning.

But I know there has to be a way for the U.S. government to help us kick, or severely cut down on, the fossil-fuel habit, with some cooperation and intelligent planning. So if the shovers would stop rushing us and the naysayers would stop scaring us, perhaps they might develop a map that safely, yet relatively swiftly, guides us to the destination we surely all want to reach: becoming a stronger, world-leading, sustainable economy that doesn’t have worry about where the next kilowatt, or breath of fresh air, will come from.

And you know, ever if the government can’t get its act together to help invest in and plan what I truly believe is a common and necessary goal, it’s at least good to see that businesses and as well as individuals are working on their own to get us someplace greener.