A few years ago the idea that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) would be trying to lead the green revolution among retailers would have sounded like a joke, but that is not the case anymore.

Wal-Mart has been making big strides over the past couple of years to become more environmentally conscience, and later this week we could be hearing of another big initiative from the nation's largest retailer.

The color for this age is definitely green as eco-consciousness is sweeping the country. For those of you who are worried about the environment and doing your share to save this planet in the future, how about letting the green movement make you earn more green.

Making the right choices for the environment seems to finally have taken hold and with the new Obama administration it should only pick up speed. If you see the value in investing in environmental services you can divest your funds by selecting an exchange traded fund (ETF). Exchange traded funds let you purchase stocks in a particular field but within that stock you own several different companies.

One environmental services ETF that may be worth researching is Market Vectors Environmental Services ETF (NYSE: EVX). EVX uses its investments to replicate the price and yield performance of the AMEX Environmental Service index. Some of their holdings include Waste Management, Inc. (NYSE: WMI) who provides integrated waste serviced in the U.S. and internationally, American Ecology Corporation (Nasdaq: ECOL) who uses subsidiaries to provide hazardous waste collection and management, and Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE: CCC) who works to purify water and air in the United States and internationally.

EWG (Environmental Working Group) found that the largest chunk of Federal subsidies for renewable energy has been for ethanol. The corn based ethanol industry received $3 billion in Federal tax credits in 2007, more than four times the $690 million in tax credits for all other forms of renewable energy including solar, wind and geothermal.

Some critics argue that Federal subsidies for corn based ethanol have not produced the results needed to solve our current energy crisis and dependency on foreign oil.

One important factor in ethanol production is water consumption. One state, Minnesota which keeps records on water consumption reports that on average it takes 4.5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Not included in this report is the cost in water usage needed to irrigate the corn to produce the feedstock.

Enter the environmentalists who argue that ethanol production is polluting our nation's water, eroding our soil, plowing up precious habitat and worst of all most likely contributing to global warming. There is growing concern that ethanol will not solve our growing energy problem and it was previously intended.

Should we continue with our current subsidies for ethanol?

Energy producers may soon notice the decided shift in the wind in Washington, political and otherwise.

After consulting with Congressional Democrats, President-elect Barack Obama moved quickly to double his proposed tax credit for renewable energy in his fiscal stimulus package to $20 billion. The Obama Administration's overall fiscal stimulus package is expected to total about $700-$850 billion.

New 'sheriff' in town

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks said Obama's energy discussions with Democrats on Capitol Hill display both Washington savvy and a decidedly new energy tone inside the corridors of power.

"First, Obama, so far, is making good on his 'all ideas considered' philosophy. Congressional Dems wanted a renewable energy tax credit program that will help speed the development of solar and wind power, and $20 billion in 2009 will further that goal. So Obama's collaborative decision making process is being deployed," Dawson said

The U.S. housing sector remains in deep recession. Consumer spending is down. Business investment remains lackluster, with industrial production indicators hitting new lows monthly. And lay-offs have hit alarming levels.

Against this backdrop it's understandable if one holds a not-so-optimistic view regarding the U.S. economy and the markets for early 2009: the economy's fundamentals are weak, and it's going to take a lot of stimulus, fiscal and otherwise, to turn them around.

Nevertheless, there are bright spots -- in this case literally, as well as macroeconomically -- regarding the U.S. economy of tomorrow.

This way to the future

One small, but significant data point: despite the plunge in oil prices to around $50 per barrel, demand for solar energy and solar panels remains strong. Demand for solar energy systems increased 45% in 2007 and is expected to register another impressive gain in 2008, The New York Times reported.

About 25,000-35,000 workers -- installers, manufacturers, distributors, project developers, and material suppliers -- are currently directly employed in the solar energy sector, which is expected to grow to more than 110,000 in 2016, according to Solar Energy Institute Association data, The Times reported.

And here's an equally important stat: the jobs pay between $15-30 per hour, with many solar companies offering health benefits, The Times reported.

It's one of the the most frustrating and unfortunate aspects of the U.S. and global recessions: a noble sector, a win-win-win all around, is facing dire times.

The recycling sector is being decimated by the economic slowdown. Many industry players may not survive, the whole process of creating new from the old seems to be stalled, and all over the globe piles of plastic, cardboard, newspaper/paper, and metal, among other re-useables, are piling up, The New York Times reported.

And the reason is obvious enough: demand for consumer goods and other finished products is declining, globally, and that means the chief manufacturing centers of the world - - China being the largest - - don't need the recyclable materials that a year ago were so much in demand, The Times reported. Prices have plunged: paper, down to $20 a ton from $105 a ton; plastic bottles to 2 cents a pound, down from 13 cents a pound; aluminum to 30 cents a pound, from $1 a pound.

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks expanded storage capabilities during this recession means recyclers will be able to hold more than 10 times the recycled material than during the last U.S. recession in 2001-2002, but there are financial and storage limits.

It doesn't seem like it's been almost 20 years since the devastating oil spill that hit Prince William Sound, Alaska, but it has been, and finally, 19 years later, Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) has started to send out lawsuit settlements to those affected by the spill.

In the first decision on the settlement, the company was ordered back in 1994 to pay damages of $5 billion for its role in the environmental disaster. But after years and years of legal battles, the company was able to first get the $5 billion cut in half, and then this June had the damages reduced yet again, down to $507 million.

The payments come with a bitter-sweet taste, as many of the plaintiffs are glad that something is being paid, but feel that the sums they are getting fall far short of what should have been owed to them.

One wouldn't think someone would criticize one of the few growth sectors in the United States that has managed to remain intact and in good health during the nation's decade of economic descent, but that's what author Elizabeth Becker does.

In an op-ed article in The Washington Post, Becker argues against global tourism -- one the few bright spots in the U.S. economy, and also increasingly a source of income for many developing nations -- saying it's "a planet-threatening plague."

The U.S. unemployment rate is rising. The U.S housing sector is in its worst slump in a generation. Oil prices remain sky high. Business investment is sluggish. The investment banking community and most in the financial community in/around Wall Street, have a perpetual look on their faces of 'waiting for the other shoe to drop.' And now an argument is being made against one the U.S.'s few growth sectors -- tourism. You can just see the late Jackie Gleason, The Great One, looking down upon all this and saying, "What is the world coming to?"

Last week the company that hopes to build a nuclear power plant in Idaho, Alternative Energy Holdings Inc. (PINK: AEGC), announced it would sue the environmental group Snake River Alliance for calling them "scammers" in a TV interview -- a local TV interview.

The company explained that they had to hold this environmental group responsible because the "world wide reach of KTVB and KTVB.COM" was causing them "substantial damage." Calling the company "scammers" on KTVB was "aimed at harming the company's stock and defaming company officials bringing down the stock price," according to this Associated Press report in the Idaho Statesman.

I'm sure the company and locals have got into a fiery battle and that the local activists say lots of inflammatory things. But KTVB still doesn't have the power to sully Alternative Energy's name around the globe. But, do you know what does? An Associated Press story on this lawsuit.

No matter what the suit's outcome people will start wondering about the company. Waste News, the influential trade magazine of the waste disposal and energy industries, picked up the story. Idaho blogger Dan Yurman predicts the suit will just lead to more donations to Snake River Alliance and more scrutiny for the company.

You know what else could really hurt the stock price? A story like this one this month in TradingMarkets.com, which says "Last week, New York-based auditors Rotenberg & Co. reported the company had lost so much money that it raised "significant" doubt about its ability to continue. Company officials said nearly $5 million in losses would not stop it from moving forward." Wouldn't a story like that hurt the stock price more than the local Idaho TV news?

While the horrific oil spill by the Exxon Valdez happened all the way back in 1989 (yes that was 19 years ago!), Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) is still in litigation over how much it should be forced to pay in damages.

Last month, Exxon Mobil won a big victory when the Supreme Court (in a 5-3 decision) lowered the company's punitive damages from $2.5 billion all the way down to $507.5 million. While this was good news for Exxon Mobil, there was one little detail left to work out -- interest on all that money. Of course, Exxon Mobil does not want to pay that interest, and today the Supreme Court decided that a lower court needs to make this decision.

So just how much interest are we talking about here? Roughly $500 million and counting, as Exxon announced earlier that the victims of the oil spill have requested $488 million in interest. This works out to about $15,000 per victim.

What does this amount mean to Exxon? Ten hours of sales. That's right, ten hours. You would think the company would just pay the money and be done with the whole mess, but Exxon will continue to fight and will have its day in the lower court of appeals.

Given the smorgasbord of economic demands and concerns -- domestic and foreign -- likely to face the new U.S. president, investors (and taxpayers) can justifiably ask 'Where's all the money going to come from to pay for these programs?'

Legitimate question, but one, for now, we'll let the political process sort out. (Current Gallup Daily Tracking Poll as of August 6, 2008, for the U.S. presidential election: Obama, 46%, McCain, 44%.)

Electing U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, or U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, will produce different programs and revenue priorities, due to the parties' different sources of power, but the argument forwarded here is that -- regardless of who becomes the new president -- the office holder should address transportation in a comprehensive way. Here are the major concern areas:

• Mass transit: We're early into the $4 gas era, of course, but initial U.S. Department of Transportation data indicates Americans are driving less and using mass transit more. The trouble is, many mass transit systems (rail, commuter rail, subway, bus) need to be expanded/upgraded to handle the increased ridership. Bigger, better mass transit systems will save the United States hundreds of billions of dollars in oil costs, not to mention the environmental benefits.

If the nation's oil companies are having trouble getting more crude out of existing fields, perhaps the solution is to put rigs in Yellowstone National Park.

"Green" environmentalists may be in for bad days. According to The Wall Street Journal, "Increasing U.S. oil production would require overturning decades-old moratoriums that limit offshore drilling and accelerating leasing of federal lands." It may come down to whether eagles and black bears mind oil exploration in the regions where they live.

Forest animals may not care, and that could be the crux of the argument. Although oil spills are not unheard of, they have become exceedingly rare. Bringing out oil from protected land may have very little environmental risk.

In some ways, opening restricted land may be the only way to save lower class and some middle class Americans from gas and oil prices so high that their spending ability is being crushed.

What black bear would want to see that happen?

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

In the equities asset class, there are show horses -- high-profile, glamorous stocks that receive considerable news coverage; and work horses -- lesser-known stocks that don't receive a great of coverage, but get the job done, nonetheless. Put Waste Management decidedly in the latter category.

Waste Management, Inc. (NYSE: WMI) is the No. 1 waste disposal company in the United States. The company provides collection, transfer, recycling and resource recovery services to 21 million residential, industrial, municipal and commercial customers. WMI operates more than 430 collection operations and 277 landfills.

Analysts like WMI's strategy to sacrifice collection volume in favor of maintaining its pricing strategy and margins.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today unveiled a new $210 billion federal spending plan that he says would create jobs in construction and environmental services.

The Obama proposal would invest money over 10 years in two programs, the largest of which would be a $150 billion effort to create 5 million "green collar" jobs to develop more-environmentally friendly energy sources.

The remaining $60 billion would fund a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild the nation's highways, bridges, airports and other public facilities. Obama said the construction fund would create nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in construction directly - - a sector hard-hit by the housing sector's correction - - the nation's most severe housing slump in more than 20 years.

Rival Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, called Obama's effort unoriginal. Neera Tanden, Clinton's policy director, said Obama was offering ideas Clinton proposed months ago. "Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as president?" Tanden said in a memo e-mailed to reporters, The Associated Press reported.

Furthermore, the Republican National Committee, which seeks to portray Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, included Obama's plan on its 'Obama Spend-O-Meter.' The Republicans assert that Obama's announced programs would add $850 billion in federal spending over four years, including health care, education, national service and foreign aid programs, among others. The RNC's web site did not break down the asserted total by year, but economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Wednesday, assuming equal, annual appropriations of $212.5 billion, the total would not be an unreasonable nor an unwarranted outlay, from an economic standpoint, in his interpretation.

"I don't know where the RNC obtained its $850 billion total, but for the sake of argument, even it was $220 billion per year, that's fairly modest, given the services it includes, including universal health insurance," Affinito said. "Also, given the current state of the economy we may find we may need another $150-$200 billion economic stimulus this year, just to keep the economy growing. So in that regard, Sen. Obama's proposal is insinc with the times and a net positive for the U.S. economy."

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may reduce production when it meets next month as part of a strategy to try to keep the price of oil above $80 per barrel, Bloomberg News reported Friday.