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.

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.

Apple just bailed on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing the business organization's view on climate change. The Chamber of Commerce doesn't accept the notion that people are the force behind global warming and has called for public hearings to question the evidence that many accept. But, this has led several companies to leave the group, with Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) only the latest.

The technology company stated through Catherine Novelli, a vice president of government affairs, that it would "prefer that the chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis." Apple resigned its membership "effective immediately."

Rajendra Pachauri, U.N. climate scientist, has good news and bad news. I'll give you the latter first: eat less meat. Doing so will help slow global warming. The good news, also related to climate change, is that Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the United Nations, investing in green technologies now is a smart move. So, by following Pachauri's advice, you cut down on your meat but reward yourself with a decent investment return.

If you take his advice as a whole (pretending you don't know you can do one part without the other), it's like getting paid to eat your veggies. Everyone who's been five years old at some point knows that being given green to eat green is ample motivation. The fun part, here, is that you're financing it by investing in green. It all matches!

Readers of this space know that one of the preferred sectors is the electric power generation sector.

And it's preferred for a reason that may not be obvious to all. Electricity via wind, solar, and nuclear generation is likely to play a large role in energy as climate change reduction, then elimination, becomes a societal goal. Electricity also remains a potential propulsion source for cars, given that crude oil has apparently resumed its climb to uncomfortable levels. And with the above in mind, electric power generator Allegheny Energy (NYSE: AYE) is worth a review.

Wind and solar, two renewable energy sources with a promising future, nevertheless face a bottleneck of sorts in the United States: the electric power grid. The existing grid can not handle the new demands, The New York Times reported Wednesday, forcing renewable wind and solar sites to shut down, even when conditions are right to generate and sell power.

An infrastructure-challenged U.S.

Economist Glen Langan says there's a theme that keeps popping up in the U.S. economy in the early 21st century: inadequate infrastructure. "We're a nation of inadequate infrastructures: the power grid, air travel/air traffic control, railways, highways... pick an infrastructure and you'll see a network that can't handle present demands, let alone an expanded national economy in 2020 or 2030," Langan said.

The power grid bottleneck is particularly frustrating and damaging because both wind and solar power generation systems are mushrooming, and could, with an adequate grid, account for more than 20% of the nation's power needs, Langan said, adding that some economic models put renewable energy's potential contribution even higher, at 25% or more.

"Imagine T. Boone Pickens building his massive, multi-billion dollar wind mill farm and having it sit idle because the grid cannot tolerate and transmit the increased power? Pretty sad," Langan said.

The United States is a nation whose electric power generation system and grid is becoming increasing inadequate, even as the nation grapples with another energy problem -- the $4 per gallon gasoline era.

Moreover, an economic slowdown and a relatively mild summer have to-date reduced the typical electric load electric power generation plants would face, but that respite will end when the U.S. economy starts to expand at a healthy rate again. And when it does, electric power demand will increase.

What's one model the United States could follow to generate more electricity while the same time reducing coal-based pollution and climate change? France.

That's right: France. Nuclear power is experiencing a mild comeback in the United States, with 34 new reactor applications on file at the U.S.'s Nuclear Regulatory Agency. In France, it never left. Further, had the United States followed the French model, the U.S. would be vastly more energy self-sufficient today.

France: liberty, fraternity, equality, fission

Nuclear power never went out of style in France, and for this reason France is decades ahead of the United States -- and much of the world, for that matter -- regarding energy self-sufficiency, The New York Times reported. An astounding 77% of France's electricity comes from its 58 nuclear power plants, and it is a net-exporter of electricity to Europe. The United States has 104 nuclear power plants, which account for only 19.4% of its generated electricity, according to U.S. Department of Energy data, The Times reported.

Despite the onset of the latest high energy price era, it goes without saying that the car will remain the main mode of transportation in the United States as the 21st century progresses.

First mass-produced on a national scale by Henry Ford, subsidized by the construction and expansion of the public interstate highway system after World War II, and immortalized by such films as George Lucas's American Graffiti (1973), the car and car culture is intrinsic to modern American life.

The car fuel alternatives

Cheap oil is not intrinsic, however, and that's a major reason why the nation is exploring car / vehicle fuel alternatives. Many options exist, each with strengths / weaknesses, and currently there's no clear winner.

Hence, in a very real sense, your say in the matter will play an important role in determining what fuel most Americans will use for car transportation in the decades ahead.

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.

The need to fulfill promises of increased aid for Africa, and a general agreement between the United States and Russia on an approach to Iran's nuclear program took center stage as leaders from the Group of Eight industrial nations met Monday in Japan, The Associated Press reported.

President Bush, attending his last summit as a sitting U.S. president, underscored the importance of providing aid for Africa, calling on wealthy nations to provide mosquito netting and other aid to prevent needless deaths, the AP reported.

Basic items - - even equipment as basic as mosquito netting - - can reduce mortality rates in sections of Africa. Mosquito netting prevents children and others from dieing of bites from disease-carrying mosquitoes.

In 2005 the G-8 pledged to increase global aid to $130 billion, and increase assistance to Africa to $50 billion. ONE, a nonpartisan group working to end extreme poverty, predicted that the U.S. and the United Kingdom will meet their commitments, while France, Italy, Germany and Canada are off the mark, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

Increased global food aid likely

Economist Glen Langan, whose specializations include agricultural economics, said increased aid for food and agricultural development will likely be announced by G-8 leaders at the summit, or soon thereafter, due to the rising cost of food's impact on poorer nations. "The aid will be targeted to meeting basic needs first, but with an eye toward directing some funds to self-sustaining agriculture," Langan said, adding that Africa "has the potential to achieve food production gains greater than South America."

That the developing and developed world will need considerably more electricity in the decades ahead would not surprise most investors / readers.

That both economic zones can achieve this goal while adding a minimal amount of soot to the atmosphere, however, would.

And the technology that will undoubtedly serve as a key energy-generation component in emerging markets' 21st century power grid? You guessed it: nuclear power -- the power generation form that has lagged in the United States for more than 20 years, due to environmental regulations.

China, India push forward with plant plans

China and India are two emerging market nations that recognize that nuclear power is an essential part of meeting future electricity demand. Nuclear power will account for more than 5% of China's power output by 2020, Bloomberg News reported Monday. Meanwhile, India will start three nuclear reactors this year.

Economist Glen Langan said that while nuclear power is not, strictly speaking, a renewable energy, it has to be considered as part of the next-generation energy mix [along with wind and solar power] to meet the U.S.'s growing demand for electricity.

With the oil and refining sectors providing evidence that $4 per gallon gasoline may represent a floor, auto makers are beefing-up efforts to improve and introduce electric cars, MarketWatch reported Wednesday.

While the new wave of hybrids and electric cars will emphasize plug-in technology (the ability to recharge the car's battery from a standard 110-volt outlet), industry executives and think tank analysts underscored that a series of government incentives and programs will be needed to enable large-scale production of plug-in hybrids and electric cars. Selected automakers have set the 2010 model year as a target for rolling out the new cars en masse.

Economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Wednesday the automakers' roll-out timetable may be a tad optimistic.

"What we're seeing now from General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and others is that classic, delayed, rush-to-the-future response so typical of a sector that's behind," Langan said. "U.S. auto makers and others should have developed at least a hybrid that could compete with gas engines 10 years ago. But they chose not to and battery technology is behind as a result. I don't think we will see a cost-effective plug-in electric in 2010, and we'll be fortunate if a cost-effective, plug-in hybrid will be in mass production by 2012 or 2013."

Almost on cue, following oil's $12 rise in two days to $134, the International Energy Agency said the world needs to invest an additional $45 trillion in the decades ahead to vastly expand both nuclear power and wind power capacity to meet global energy needs.

Strictly speaking, the IEA's call to action was rooted in reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions and achieving what it argues will be "a clean, clever, energy future" and not to move away from oil or fossil fuels solely on cost grounds. (pdf)

Still, the report's 2050 ETP Baseline scenario projects that CO2 emissions will rise by 130% and oil demand will rise by 70% - - the latter total being equal to five times Saudi Arabia's current oil production. If the IEA's oil projection is correct, that would suggest additional large increases in the price of oil in the decades ahead - - on top of oil's more than 400% price rise since 2001.