By Anthony Burke Boylan --

Green technology has been the holy grail of investment for more years than anyone cares to recall. Its history is littered with efforts – noble and otherwise – that have been ballyhooed but ultimately fizzled.

Purveyors of solar, clean coal, hydro-electric and other well-intentioned energy sources have gone out of business or remain in a marginalized penny stock existence.

While consumers have shown a willingness to adapt their behavior to buy “green’’ products, and even spend a little more doing so, they are confused

One issue is that nobody really knows what “green’’ means. Twenty years ago it was green to buy the slightly more expensive paper towels and toilet paper that used some recycled materials. Today consumers still get a sense of environmental satisfaction purchasing energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs for their home.

When it comes to the big and critical areas of powering a home, a car, a business, there are more questions now than when Rachel Carson was learning to write.

The U.S. Department of Energy has its Energy Star seal of approval, but numerous industry designations exist as well. A confusing array of standards and designations has been put forth by everyone from altruistic think tanks to industry associations. Yet green designations and environmental standards still are the Wild West. Verizon, claiming there was no way to adapt the DOE’s Energy Star standards to its equipment, created its own standard and declared victory.

Evidence suggests the investors who will fund any substantial move toward green technology are equally confused. Some chase the magic bullet; game-changing technologies that will significantly alter the world’s carbon footprint in short order. Others realize such a magic bullet doesn’t exist and won’t anytime soon, choosing to pursue a strategy of small and incremental changes, from household products to using fewer polluting components in everyday products.

In 2008 half of the money invested in clean technology went to alternative energy companies – or places with the potential for home runs in the green business. In the first quarter of this year, however, only one-third of venture capital in clean technology went to such companies, according to the National Venture Capital Association.

Venture capital is starting to move away from its infatuation with alternative energy and returning to one of its traditional strengths: applying information technology to improve the efficiency of energy consumption.

Blame the credit crunch, the economy, an appetite for less risk and the potential for investment returns within a lifetime. Or maybe it’s just the manifestation of a lesson learned.

Major energy technologies are capital intensive, requiring the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars over a very long time before showing a return, if there are returns at all.

Companies that provide baby steps in environmental technology are where the investors are looking now. Such companies might make super efficient building climate systems, help utilities avoid production waste, create smart computer equipment and networks that use fewer resources and generally play the environmental equivalent of “small ball,’’ winning with singles and stolen bases rather than grand slams.

With the narrow passage of climate-change legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives this week, the only thing clear is that there still is no unified effort on how companies and investors can most efficiently, and most profitably, approach the business of environmental improvement.

With U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, (R-GA) claiming that climate change is nothing but a “hoax,’’ about the only thing we know is that scientists and entrepreneurs today face the same challenges that  Galileo did. That and that our Legislative branch is not yet poised to lead consumers, investors and corporations on this issue.

And that’s not a partisan dig. The Republican Party can claim some very historical environmental milestones. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the National Parks System and Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act into legislation.

While the Clean Air Act had its detractors, no credible scientist would argue it hasn’t helped the environment. And venture capitalists who knew to look past complaints of change to the status quo found ways to make money - - and lots of it – by investing in technology that made factories homes and cares more energy efficient.

Someone ought to let Broun know about that.

When government does provide a unified strategy, venture capitalists might once again look to the home run. Until then investors aren’t so much looking for the next big thing, but lots of the next small things.

Anthony Burke Boylan is a public relations professional with 15 years experience as a financial and political reporter. Reach him at tboylan@capitalinsight.com