Green has always been a popular color in Boston, and by extension, in Massachusetts in general, both literally and symbolically.

One need look no further than the impossibly stunning greenness of a spring day at Fenway Park, or the green-on-every-street corner pride in every city and town come St. Patrick’s Day in these parts, to get a sense of how important the color is in our lives.

And then there’s that political “green,” the catchphrase that has come to symbolize a growing and increasingly urgent shift toward efficiency, sustainability and awareness of our selves and our impact on our environment.

A recent study ranked Boston among the top green cities in the country – no small distinction – and symbolic of the city and region’s commitment to embracing what is sure to be among this still-young century’s greatest policy shifts. City requirements that include having all significant new construction in Boston reach LEED certification and tax incentives for incorporating renewable energy have helped Boston seize a leadership role and retain its status as a city of influence on the national, and international, stage.

But what really matters about “going green” are not the short-term political gains or that chic ability to say, haughtily, “We’re greener than you,” but the actual, tangible environmental benefits that come from green initiatives.

Just last week, Ian Bowles, the state’s secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said the state’s nascent efforts to reduce commercial buildings’ greenhouse gas emissions has already cut emissions in new developments by 10 percent to 15 percent. What’s notable about Bowles’ figures is they were achieved with minimal regulation – to this point, the state has required that developers only consider green building methods in their cost calculations, nothing more, nothing less. Which means that in the absence of firm regulation, the market, not the state, is determining the value of green development. And it seems to have determined it worthwhile.

At this early stage of the debate, it might be tempting for some to look at Bowles’ findings and think, “Well, if you can get those kinds of results without any regulations or requirements, imagine the kind of success we could have if we imposed and enforced stricter guidelines!”

It’s true that mandating reform does achieve results, and it’s also true that those results are, in this case, desirable. No matter where you stand on the global warming/climate change debate, we say it’s a no-brainer to assume that emitting less, and saving more, tends to be a good thing.

But at what cost do those mandates come? In addition to the measurable cost of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy (It’s not too much of a leap to imagine a state “Green Czar,” is it?) and the associated costs of enforcement, there’s the less tangible, but no less important, costs inherent with the state’s lack of competitiveness.

Going green does cost money – can’t get around that. So a developer inclined to build in Massachusetts, even one sympathetic to green methods, might look elsewhere if he were forced to go beyond what he thinks he can afford.

To this point, the market alone has driven green success in Massachusetts. In a time when new developments are scarce and tenants reluctant to move, green projects have been the lone bright spot in the market. Developers, always worried about that first-dollar cost, are beginning to realize the demand for green amenities from tenants, and might slowly be realizing the inherent logic in a “pay a little more now, get a lot more later” philosophy.

In other words, developers seem to be realizing that going green now can put them in the black come earnings time. And to this point, they’ve realized it almost wholly on their own.

We would ask Ian Bowles to consider this if and when the seemingly inevitable proposal to mandate more green regulations comes across his desk. We have nowhere to go but up from here, and we’d rather see the state help developers climb the green mountain with incentives and a guiding hand, rather than drag them slowly up the hill tethered to mandates and regulations.