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.

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.

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.

He discovered global warming; he created the Internet; and his wife shielded my young ears from curse words when I was growing up. Now Al Gore has decided it is time to single-handedly rescue the automotive world. Okay, not really, but Al Gore is a major backer of California-based Fisker Automotive, which has just secured a $529 million government loan to build a hybrid sports car in Finland.

Couple of problems here, but let's start with the idea of the car. I am so glad that Fisker is going to help the earth. I mean, who doesn't want to conserve fuel and reduce air pollution while cruising around in their four-door sports car? I mean, who doesn't have an extra $89,000 lying around to spend on transportation? Seriously, it is now at the point that only celebrities can afford a hybrid car that doesn't look like it was built of Lego.

Last night it was reported by Reuters, following up on an interview in the Financial Times (subscription required) that James Hackett, chairman and chief executive of independent oil and gas company Anadarko Petroleum (NYSE: APC) said, "Washington's energy and environmental policy risks plunging the United States into an economic tailspin that could make it the world's cleanest third world country."

Seems he is not partial to the global warming crowd as indicated by his statement that "The histrionic and maniacal focus on carbon dioxide is intellectually repugnant to me," but how does he really feel?

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.

If you'd said a hundred years ago that the offspring of John D. Rockefeller would lead the charge for improved corporate governance, social responsibility, and an end to energy dependence and global warming, a lot of people would have laughed. But Neva Rockefeller Goodwin and Peter O'Neill, descendants of John D. Rockefeller, are pushing for change at Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM).

Three resolutions supported by the family have no chance of passing, according to the New York Times. One asks Exxon Mobil to study the impact of global warming on poor countries and another asks it to reduce its emissions. A third would encourage it to spend more money on research into renewable energy sources.

The resolution most likely to pass seeks to separate the role of chairman and CEO, stripping imperial executive Rex Tillerson of a chunk of his power. (To get an idea of how he runs the company from a corporate governance perspective, check out Robert Monks' book Corpocracy. )The Economist describes Exxon's annual meeting as "a vigorous exercise in doing the minimum required by the law." The Rockefeller's and others are looking to change that.

Operationally, the change would probably have no impact on the company's strategy or value. But in the long run, good corporate governance and stewardship of shareholder assets can be key contributors to total return.

As was reported in AP online, "Members of the Rockefeller family are pressuring Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) to focus more on renewable energy. The family members, who say they are the oil giant's longest continuous shareholders, say Exxon is too focused on short-term gains from sky-high oil prices. They also argue splitting the roles of chairman and CEO will help the company be more flexible in the future."

Last time I checked, companies had a responsibility to provide value for shareholders, and no one has done it better than the oil giant. It has been producing record earnings quarter after quarter, and that is exactly what it is supposed to do. Corporations are not supposed to be politically correct organizations that throw money around at the latest fad. Maybe Exxon doesn't believe that there is a global warming problem? Or maybe it wants to see a lot more scientific evidence of the problem before committing billions and billions of dollars to research. If I were a shareholder, I would want management to take the exact approach that it has been taking. The fact that it is the most profitable company in the world means something. It should be commended for providing shareholder value.

In fact, Bloomberg has an article that says that ocean cooling will stop global warming. Moreover, the article indeed mentions that the authors tried to spin the article because of Exxon. "We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don't want it to be turned around in the wrong way," Keenlyside said. "I hope it doesn't become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics."

Sounds to me that they are right to be skeptical.

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 5/1/08

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?

While getting grilled by opportunistic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, about soaring gas prices and how senior executives are able to live with themselves knowing they are making such large profits, J.S. Simon, CEO of Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), let the cat out of the bag. Responding to questions from Rep. Edward Markey as to why Exxon hasn't invested in alternative energy, the AP reported the following exchange:

"Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable revolution," asked Markey.

Simon said his company, which earned $40 billion last year, had provided $100 million on research into climate change at Stanford University, but that current alternative energy technologies "just do not have an appreciable impact" in addressing "the challenge we're trying to meet."

Yes, you did read the headline right, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is hoping to cash in from the growing demand in hybrid cars. I know what you are thinking... ExxonMobil and hybrid cars don't exactly sound right in the same sentence, but when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. ExxonMobil loves cash, and if they see business potential in hybrid cars you can be sure they are going to go after their fair share.

While the hybrid market has been steadily growing, it is still a very small percentage of overall vehicle sales, but ExxonMobil thinks that hybrid popularity is going to grow at a quicker pace that the government is currently estimating.

According to Jim Harris, president of ExxonMobil's chemical division, "We are interested in good business opportunities, and that is what this is." While it is true that ExxonMobil's fascination with hybrids is due to the money-making potential, it is still good to see interest from the same company that held out so many years claiming that fossil fuels were having no impact on global warming.

With all the hysteria about global warming and the impact that it will have on the globe, I found it quite funny that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported yesterday that we just experienced the coldest winter since 2001. Hey Al Gore -- how can that be? I remember when I was growing up, in the mid- 1970's, Newsweek magazine had a cover story about the beginning of the ice age. Amazing what can happen in 25 years. We can go from an ice age, to global warming. Not bad.

According to the NOAA report:

"In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895. "

Why not ask the Chinese about global warming? They just experience a horribly snowy winter which has been a major cause of inflation. Extreme cold temperatures were the norm this winter. Over the last 150 years or so the global mean temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This small amount of warming is not unusual, and falls well within the range of variation for both warming a cooling.

Sometimes executives can put their foot in their mouths, but calling global warming "a crock of s**t," goes beyond that. GM (NYSE: GM)'s Vice Chairman Bob Lutz recently expressed that opinion on his own (not reflective of GM), but it's still being hailed as idiotic on plenty of forums and blog posts from around the world this week.

Lutz had to fire off a blog post of his own to defend his words, but it doesn't matter. He said what he said, and to the ever-growing ecologically astute crowd that's running from GM's gas-hogging SUVs into Toyotas and Hondas, his comments only strengthen what many think of GM: a major contributor to global warming through its huge vehicles for all those Suburban soccer moms and masculine Hummer men.

Now, Lutz did repair his words as best he could in his defense, saying that: "General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don't: So am I! It's the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely."

It's true that GM has made great strides in trying to revolve its product portfolio around more eco-friendly vehicles, but it still has a long way to go. If it can really make a concept like the Volt work on a mass scale, the recognition GM will receive will go a long way, regardless of lessening dependence on foreign oil or helping curb global warming. Customers will take notice.

Within the next three years, the federal government is expected to enact legislation capping carbon output levels for U.S. businesses. U.S. companies will either have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, to be determined later, or buy carbon offset credits from businesses that have reduced their carbon output in excess of their required minimum. Why is this a problem for investors? Once the federal carbon caps are in place, carbon offset credits will be much more expensive to purchase. Companies with excessive carbon outputs will pay a steep price for carbon credits.

Why don't companies take a more proactive approach and purchase carbon offset credits now when the price is much lower? Unfortunately, the carbon credit market is presently completely unregulated. There is no standardized system for measuring carbon reduction amounts nor is there any way to verify the legitimacy of such carbon credits as do exist. Companies that wish to market themselves as "green" may voluntarily participate in various carbon reduction efforts, such as reforestation projects. But there is no guarantee that the federal carbon cap program will recognize those efforts once mandatory caps are in place.

Many of the same problems exist with Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). There is no national registry of who owns what RECs, no verification as to whether the energy is actually generated from clean energy sources. There is no standardized method to convert RECs into carbon offset credits. In the next 3-4 years, all investors in all types of companies will be forced to consider carbon output numbers as one more factor in the due diligence process.