Nuclear power is coming back into style, and perhaps just in time for the climate, and for the United States.

Environmental groups, previously opposed to nuclear power, are starting to support the technology, as it represents the lesser of two evils compared to coal-fired electric power generation plants, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. And the choice is obvious enough: faced with either processing nuclear waste or seeing the atmosphere heat up to irreversible levels, via coal-producing climate change, nuclear technology wins.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting back. The organization has filed a civil lawsuit against the Yes Men, an activist group that announced that the chamber had changed its position on climate change.

The Yes Men told the National Press Club on October 19, 2009 that the Chamber of Commerce would give up lobbying against the Senate's 800-page climate change bill. Reuters, CNBC and Fox Business Network all reported on the story, with the anchors correcting themselves midstream, when they learned that it was false.

Investors hoping to ride the climate change bandwagon have had a roller coaster ride over the past two years. Greentech stocks soared with the oil spike in 2007 and 2008, then crashed with stock market and commodity price declines in 2009. Since then, some of the most obvious stock plays have strongly rebounded. Many solar stocks have posted high double-digit gains since rebounding off year-to-date lows in March 2009.

The leading solar panel manufacturer, FirstSolar (NASDAQ: FSLR) has appreciated by 45% from lows of near $100 to a closing price of $154 on October 14. "I wouldn't be stepping into buying these stocks right now," says Pacific Crest senior analyst Mark Bachman, who covers solar stocks. Still, he rates FirstSolar as a market perform and considers it the best solar stock at present on his coverage list.

The clean technology wave just got a little bigger. This tends to be a side-effect of interest from billionaire investor George Soros. And, as usual, it's more than just money; it's more than just a return. Soros, yet again, is trying to save the world. Interestingly, the bold move was announced at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate – an international association consisting of 430 newspapers from 150 countries (and thus with clear ties to the past, rather than future).

The investor and founder of Soros Fund Management LLC is planning to put $1 billion into clean-tech opportunities using what he calls "rather stringent criteria," which involves being "profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem [i.e., of clean technology adoption and proliferation]." Soros didn't provide any other details on the nature or scope of his investments.

While Al Gore is busy preaching about global warming and environmentalists around the world hail ethanol as a solution to the "global warming" problem, the less fortunate, poorer countries in the world are in the midst of political turmoil as citizens riot and protest over soaring food prices.

As reported by Marketwatch: "In Egypt, headline inflation jumped to 14.4% in March, with the pace of food price rises soaring to 20.5% year-on-year from 16.8% in February. In addition, the country is suffering from shortages of bread, which is heavily subsidized by the government."

Coming soon to investor email and mail boxes will be annual reports and proxy voting materials, complete with this year's shareholder resolutions. Hot topics this annual meeting season include the ever popular "say-on-pay." Shareholders are incensed that average or even sub-par executive performance and decision making is being handsomely rewarded with gigantic salaries and perks while they make due with crumbs. According to a recent article in CFO Magazine, 76 shareholder proposals dealing with executive compensation have made it onto the ballot.

Also on many ballots are shareholder resolutions dealing with socially responsible investing, particularly on matters revolving around the issue of global warming and/or climate change. So far, 56 shareholder resolutions have made it onto ballots. At least nine companies have taken steps to negate the need for such shareholder resolutions by rolling out policies addressing how the companies will cut back on greenhouses emissions and otherwise "go green."

As this is a presidential election year, there are at least 50 shareholder resolutions to force companies to disclose political contributions. These resolutions probably won't gain the necessary traction to force any action, but any resolution favoring greater corporate transparency is to shareholders' advantage.

New this year are numerous resolutions requesting senior management to disclose a company's exposure to subprime mortgage losses and secondary purchases in the mortgage market. This is a hot topic among investors right now, and many pension fund investors have taken hits. Look for union members to pressure their pension funds manangers on this one.

How will you vote on these subjects?

In a report released by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the threat of a US recession placed higher than terrorism as the biggest threat to the world for 2008. "Fears of a U.S. recession coupled with a sudden spike in oil prices replaced terrorism, pandemic disease outbreaks and short-term disasters resulting from climate change as the issues global business leaders are most worried about, said the "Global Risks 2008" report." Well at least they got it right vis-a-vis climate change, or lack thereof.

There is no question that US economic growth is slowing led by the decline in housing, and the impact that slowing growth will have on the global economy as well as thestock market is an important issue. It also will play a big role in the upcoming Presidential elections. But the most important issue?

The report added, " The third major risk - dwindling food supplies - has become an issue not just for developing nations but also for rich countries," the report said, citing steep price increases for staple foods over the past year.

2007 Nobel Prize Winner and 2000 Presidential election winner Al Gore has another notch on his belt -- partner at Silicon Valley's most prestigious venture capital firm -- Kleiner Perkins. (Thanks to the Supreme Court, Gore -- who won the 2000 Presidential vote -- did not serve.)

But he handled the disappointment well. His work on the documentary An Inconvenient Truth -- easily the highest payoff PowerPoint presentation ever made -- has helped make the world aware of the threat it faces from global warming and what people can do about it. Gore insightfully points out that climate change is a matter of war and peace. It has created conflict -- the drying up of a lake in Sudan contributed to genocide there and the melting of the polar icecap has set off an international sea grab at the top of the world.

So what's the deal with Gore at Kleiner Perkins? According to the New York Times, President-elect Gore's part-time job at Kleiner will be to assess the potential of alternative energy companies and to opine on whether Kleiner Perkins should invest in them. Gore plans to donate his salary from the venture to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit policy foundation. But he was not clear about whether he'd get the partner's share of the 2% of assets under management and 20% of the profits from successful "exits."

He was clearer about his political aspirations -- noting "I don't expect to be a candidate again."

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

The cover story of the current issue of Fortune, which shares a parent company, Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), with this blog, sounds the trumpets -- proclaiming that Business is back!

I've had the pleasure of working with the author of this article, Geoff Colvin, who interviewed me once on the now-defunct Wall $treet Week with Fortune in 2004. Colvin also quoted me in this article on The Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD). So I know I would enjoy debating him on the premise of his article which is that after six years of a lousy reputation in the wake of the dot-com collapse and Enron/WorldCom, business is now enjoying a resurgence in public opinion.

But Colvin's premise strikes me more as wishful thinking than persuasive evidence. With business magazine advertising declining -- Fortune's dropped 9.6% in the first quarter -- this advertiser-friendly article could help bring in more revenue. He bases his conclusion on three pillars: