Climate change isn't going to be free. A report by Point Carbon, an independent consulting company that tracks global carbon and energy markets, estimates that U.S. climate legislation could push the price at the pump 13 cents a gallon higher. The increase would result from the cost to oil companies for carbon permits, which they can pass along to consumers.

This is a much rosier view than that of the oil industry, however, which believes a U.S. cap-and-trade system would thrash demand for gasoline and lead to the shuttering of many refineries.

Here's the tip: It might be time to pull investments from Chinese manufacturing and export interests.

According to an Associated Press report, which features some mind numbing quotes from Li Gao, China's chief climate negotiator, it may soon become far more economically practical to manufacture products here, at home, in the good old USA.

It seems that the obviously arrogant Mr. Gao, and the communist nation that he represents, have decided that we, consumers, should bear the brunt of the expense for that nation's carbon emission load. The logic used to back this assertion, while certainly passing as logic, serves as nothing more than a spotlight on the fundamentally flawed "cap and trade" carbon emissions boondoggle that is slowly unfolding.

Leaders of the G-8 (group of 8 wealthy nations) basically did nothing in their talks to cut global greenhouse emissions. They agreed to cut emissions in half by the year 2050. How many of them will even be alive by then? I've heard of five year economic plans but 42 year plans? Something tells me it just won't work. The U.S. also was victorious in not setting any actual numerical targets.

According to a MarketWatch report: "The U.S. and several other developed countries have said they will not enter an agreement to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions which does not include binding commitments by growing industrial powers such as China and India to cut carbon."

And rightly so. Why should the U.S. bear the brunt of the economic costs of this initiative and growing economies, which are much bigger polluters, get off without having to accept any responsibility? It seems like a case of just trying to redistribute wealth from the west to emerging economies.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 7/8/08.

The Associated Press reports that 2000 president-elect and 2007 Nobel Prize winner Al Gore called for a universal global cap on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and the use of the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reduction.

In accepting his Nobel Prize in person, Gore missed a chance to attend the wedding of Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) co-founder Larry Page to Lucy Southworth at Necker Island. But Gore's speech included some stirring calls to act: "Despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat: 'They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.'"

What action is Gore taking? This week, he plans to urge the delegates in Bali to ratify a U.N. treaty to reduce global warming and bring it into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 -- two years ahead of schedule. He also calls for heads of state to meet every three months until the treaty is completed. He urges a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store CO₂. And he calls for a CO₂ tax that shifts the tax burden from employment to pollution.

Too bad Gore's not a head of state with the power to make this happen.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Google.

Dell, Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL) is joining the eco-group of corporate citizenry in a larger way by stating this week that it will be reducing the carbon output effects of its global operations by the end of 2008. What does this mean? Well, Dell will be tallying up all of its greenhouse emissions from all plants and facilities around the globe. It will then measure the effect of all those emissions and will develop a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them all at some point.

In addition to the eventual elimination of greenhouse gases from factories, the computer maker will also become more energy efficient and will power operations in some areas with renewable power sources. Currently, renewable power sources popular with consumers and businesses alike include solar power and wind power.

Now, in many cases, these ecological statements are lip service for the press along with the added benefit of good PR. But, as competition intensifies, some companies actually turn "going green" into a competitive advantage while remaining competitive at a pure business level. If you were an ecologically conscious consumer deciding between a Dell "green" PC and one from competitor Acer -- with similar prices and performance -- which would you choose? Consumers are where it's at right now when it comes to PC purchases, if I'm not mistaken.

The problem so often seen is that companies really making a difference in trying to help the planet don't market those efforts to the purchasing customers, whether they be consumers or businesspeople. Dell has a chance here to make itself well-known as the "green" PC company -- I hope the company doesn't let the chance fall through the cracks.

According to What's Next in Science, atomic scientists have finally proven the theory that carbon can be magnetized. While this may not sound like much, (and in the very near future it isn't), this development has far-reaching implications in the areas of computer technology, and possibly also in the fight against (alleged) global warming caused by carbon emissions.

First, because carbon is the basis for most aspects of miniaturized construction, knowing now that it can be magnetized adds a new facet to material creation and thereby to miniaturized construction also. This means that the very nature of miniature components can be looked at in a new light. Additionally, because magnetization is the basis for data storage as we know it, the world of digital memory may have just drafted a new player.

Also worthy of consideration is the fact that because science now knows that carbon can be magnetized, the reduction of carbon emissions might be introduced to a new phase of carbon emissions removal. If you can magnetize something, then you can also polarize it and polarization is one of the foundations of elemental control.

So stay tuned to this channel. There promises to be some significant developments. Carbon is one of the very building blocks of life itself, and now science has determined that they may have more control over it than previously thought.

Artificial brain anyone?

As I was considering what to blog about, it occurred to me that we haven't heard from General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) lately. I usually consider that a good sign because it most often means that things are progressing as they should. I hopped over to the G.E. website to see what those good folks have been up to. I found some interesting things over there and yes, some boring things too. Boring things can be just as important as exciting things. I have brought back some of both for you.

This past Monday, GE named Michael E. Chen President and CEO of its Global Media and Communications operations. Chen's move to this position is in recognition of his prowess in specialized customer relations and an overall leadership style which has earned him high regard at GE. Michael Chen has been referred to as one of the top customer relations experts in the country. Congratulations and good luck Michael!

General Electric has received Popular Mechanics 2006 Breakthrough Award for technology which brings hydrogen electrolysis into the realm of economic reality. What this means to us regular folks is that they are now able to extract hydrogen from water in a way that should make it economical to use as fuel. GE undertook the project with the goal of cutting the costs associated with hydrogen production. Guess what folks, they did it! OPEC will be green with envy.

GE and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) have teamed up to replace conventional fluorescent lighting in Wal-Mart's refrigerated display units. This will reduce the power draw of those displays by up to 78%. This move is part of Walmart's environmental sustainability directive. Wal-Mart estimates this change of lighting in 500 stores will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 35 million pounds yearly. The press release is really very amazing to read! The future is upon you folks!

There's a lot more information on their website that is worth reading. It's definitely worth the trip over there. The funny thing is that this is headline stuff. Why isn't it making it into the press? You won't hear about these breakthroughs on CNN or Fox News. I wonder why not -- who's in charge over there? They yell and scream about supposed global warming, but when the solutions come around they clam up! Go figure.