Go For a New Industry!

I think the article makes an absolutely fantastic point. Behind every challenge there is money to be made. Especially on the heels of such a severe recession, people are more concerned with growth than they usually are. To transform climate change into a business, growth, and jobs-building opportunity would allow environmental goals to be easily sold to a broad swath of the U.S. public. Concerning whether or not it is appropriate to phrase it as a race, at this point it seems that anything that gets this environmental-friendliness moving is appropriate. The stagnation involved on this issue is tremendous, and will only grow as the extraordinarily partisan climate shows no true signs of abating. If friendly business competition drives forward innovation, then why not make it into a race? Economists will point out that competition brings out better solutions because both sides are trying to make their products more efficient for consumers. After decades of too little being done, I think complaining would miss the point. Sometimes, to get where you need to be, you need to take some sidesteps.
Just a few years ago, U.S. automakers were in a horrible position as better cars, especially from Japan, rolled off the assembly lines. Who would purchase a gas-guzzling, overly expensive U.S. truck when at the same time they could purchase an inexpensive hybrid that can go fifty miles on a gallon? While the U.S. auto industry is far from recovered and far from a completely new state, no one can say that it remains the same. Far from it, one can now see more efficient, more inexpensive vehicles coming out. Although the Chevy Volt is pretty expensive, the concept of the Volt going to market a few years ago would seem laughable. Then you had oil hover around 150 dollars a barrel, a recession, and bankruptcy as competition squeezed U.S. automakers. After adapting, they are on much better footing.
In terms of whether or not the argument for green manufacturing and technology as the elixir to climate problems is accurate, I would only say that it is only one issue. I do not think the author came out and said that it is the perfect medicine; I simply believe he was making the point that it is ridiculous that the United States has not transformed this into an economic issue because the benefits reaped can be enormous. This point is true. But strictly looking at the idea of technology as the true solution, it misses the point. If a habit is causing harm, then the habit needs to be changed or kicked. It can be an integral part of halting the damage, potentially reversing some of it, and creating growth, but other ideas also need to be considered, such as how a nation disposes of its waste, and how consumers understand costs. Otherwise, one will only focus on one narrow sector of a broader problem. This is not saying that technology is a problem, because it is not. But if one only focuses on the technical aspect when there are so many other layers, then there is no hope of reducing a very severe problem.