The bottom line won, green just road its coat-tails...
It's touched upon in the article, but in an odd way it's now very expensive not to be green.
At work, if I need a new server a VM is spun up. Speaking to friends in other companies, most infrastructures have gone the way of "you need to justify hardware" these days - the default is a VM, on the grounds that it reduces power consumption/rack space/hardware costs.
And then there's the cloud. Ever built a SharePoint farm? So many machines! But if you're using Office 365, then that's Microsoft's problem. And at the scale of their O365 SharePoint farms, you can assume that they want to eke every saving out of them that they can - so it's probably pretty green.
But even aside from that, at a machine level the cycles not spent serving you are probably spent serving someone else. I'd wager that the sheer scale of the various cloud services makes it far more energy efficient than using your own infrastructure, even if you have a virtualised infrastructure.
Lastly there's the hardware itself. I'm struggling to think of a recent time when I replaced something with a new bit of kit that was less efficient than the previous one...
Eco-warriors should take heart. As the technologies developed and scaled, it rapidly became too expensive to be anything but green unless you really needed local performance.
Now if only we had the same kind of cut-throat competition in power generation - then we wouldn't have people clinging on to big coal-fired stations to eke out the last of their lifespan, instead of moving to something that was newer and cheaper.
(My point being that the new technologies for power generation are close, but don't seem close enough or compelling enough yet to force replacement as we do with IT kit.)