Since the New York Times charges for information, I've summarized Friedman's article here:

I) Introduction: “Green is the new red, white and blue.” As his readers might have come to expect, most of the article reads like a State of the Union address.
 
II)
a.    The price of oil needs to go down because “the price of oil and the pace of freedom are inversely correlated.” When oil prices are high, anti-democratic regimes become richer and more powerful, terrorists get funding and the world is unsafe. When oil prices are low, the “petroauthoritarian regimes [have] to open themselves to foreign investment and educate and empower their people more in order to earn income.”

b.    The US military needs to improve its energy efficiency because this will improve its overall efficiency. As an added bonus, if the US military becomes more energy efficient, the rest of the country will follow suit. “Pay attention,” Friedman says, “When the US Army desegregated, the country really desegregated; when the Army goes green, the country could really go green.”

III) Global warming is now seen as a legitimate issue, and as a wealthy country we have the capacity, as well as the responsibility, to address it.

IV) Countries that aren’t wealthy (i.e. – China, India) won’t address global warming. They can’t afford to:

So now we come to the nub of the issue: 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.

V) It is not altruism that will drive green innovation, but free market capitalism. Companies like Wal-Mart and countries like China, that only survive insofar as they deliver cheaply made, mass-produced goods, need to see going green as a way to cut costs and drive profit. Friedman cites Shi Zhengrong of Suntech Power as an example. Suntech is a Chinese silicon solar panel manufacturer, and Zhengrong is constantly trying to reduce costs and prices. “If it takes off,” Friedman points out, “China could do for solar panels what it did for tennis shoes – bring the price down so far that everyone can afford a pair.”   

VI) The government needs to get involved too. Unlike technology like a cell phone, which is lighter and more convenient than a ground phone, energy does not become a more desirable type of product when it is powered by solar instead of coal. Thus the consumer needs external incentives:

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 – like wind and solar. 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 – my preference and the simplest option – 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.

Friedman points out that local politicians, such as governors, are leading the way on this charge.

VII) Conclusion: Green is downright patriotic. It plays to America’s strengths (intelligent labor), instead of its weaknesses (cheap labor). Also, environmental leadership might revive our international reputation after the whole Iraq debacle. And remember, green is not about sacrifice, it’s about opportunity. We could be “the Greenest Generation” yet.