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.

As someone who is very skeptical of the "global warming mania" that is sweeping the world, I found yesterday's announcement that none other than Nobel Prize winner and former VP Al Gore is joining the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, as a partner quite amusing. There is no question that Gore can open doors and get meetings with anyone he wants but what does he know about building a private business? As a former senator, he never met an anti-business regulation that he didn't like. Now Gore is going to "assist both start-up companies and their investors with product strategies, helping them navigate through the political maze and regulatory battles that accompany new technologies." Isn't it ironic that he will be consulting companies to work the the regulatory maze that he himself created!

But what does he know about the world of start-ups? Having worked in venture capital I can tell you that trailblazing around the world and meeting with world leaders at Davos, isn't how to build a successful company. Hard-work and boot-strapping it are the way to go. No first class international business trips on the company's tab. That perk went away with the hi-tech bubble burst of 7 years ago. While it was easy for the former senator to waste taxpayer money in Washington, DC, the private sector is a different ballgame. Investors expect accountability.

Until actual science proves that there is such a thing as man-made global warming, let's hope Mr. Gore goes the way of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who joined KPCB two years ago as a part-time partner, never to be heard from again. Maybe that will end the mania.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. He holds no position in any stock mentioned as of 11/13/07.

At a forum in Singapore, former Vice President Al Gore pointed his finger towards oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) as being a part of a group of pollution-emitting companies guilty of spreading misinformation worldwide over the issue of global warming.

According to Gore, there is an organized campaign that receives roughly $10 million a year to spread misinformation in order to cast doubt as to whether or not global warming is a problem in today's world. The secret benefactors behind this campaign? According to Gore the money can be traced back to the biggest polluters in the world, and he then went so far as to call out Exxon by name.

The argument over global warming is definitely still a sensitive subject for many of us. Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that the world is warming, so I apologize if this story is slanted towards my bias, but to me, the world just seems a lot warmer then when I was a kid. But for every person who thinks like me, there is another person that will swear that nothing is changing and its just liberal whining with no science behind it.

In what is sure to be only the latest event in a long case of protracted legal wrangling, a San Francisco federal appeals court has ordered Royal Dutch Shell Plc's (NYSE: RDS.A) vessels to stop all operations in the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas. Environmental groups and Eskimo villages are seeking greater research into the effect drilling will have on marine wildlife in the region, and the judge agreed to give them time.

Shell isn't too happy. The company claims to have spent $200 million on the project already, including extensive research on the effect drilling will have on the environment, and has also formulated a plan to deal with oil spills. Of course, it's easy to be skeptical of an oil company's studies on environmental impact.

The Department of the Interior has supported drilling but, given the recent scandals involving global warming and political pressure on scientists, the department is not as high on credibility as it once was.

Given the amount of time it will take for any oil from the region to be brought to market, and the relatively small amount that is thought to be feasible for drilling, this probably won't have a material impact on energy prices anytime soon.

As comedians, personalities, and musicians worldwide joined together to promote the cause of environmental awareness, interested viewers took to their computers, collectively generating more than 9 million internet streams, according to Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT)'s MSN service.

The previous record was set in 2005 during Live 8 - another philanthropic concert aimed to fight global poverty. "We have exceeded any other online entertainment event," MSN's product manager noted in a Reuters piece. "It's really exciting to see the enthusiasm for the concert."

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F), DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE: DCX) and the United Auto Workers just can't stop complaining about new, tougher fuel-efficiency standards that the U.S. Congress likely will pass.

The companies and union are taking their case to Capital Hill today at a private luncheon with leaders of the U.S. Senate to convince them to reconsider an overhaul of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, according to the Associated Press.

Let's hope that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed has the guts to tell them to pound sand. The public is fed up with high gas prices and the growing problem caused by global warming. Even GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner has acknowleged this reality, though the AP quotes him cryptically saying "let's make sure that we also fix the real problems while we're doing that."