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.

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!

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.

Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) has to wonder if Al Gore knows exactly what he is talking about when it comes to global warming.

This morning, the power company announced that its second-quarter profit fell to 21 cents per share from 28 cents per share a year ago. Excluding items, the company would have earned 26 cents per share, which is a penny better than the consensus estimate. Revenue for the quarter fell to $2.91 billion from $3.22 billion a year ago and far short of the consensus estimate. The blame for the year-over-year profit decline falls squarely on the shoulders of mark-to-market losses on economic hedges.

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?

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.

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.

When my wife and I were in Europe a few years ago, we saw the "Smart Cars," vehicles so small that they look like they could have come off an assembly line at a toy plant. The reason we were told that they were so popular in Europe was that gas was expensive and people there did not need to drive huge distances over crowded highways. Well, I thought these sort of vehicles would never sell in the U.S. where we like our cars as wide and free as freeway at the crack of dawn.

Thanks to $4 gas, my theory has been proven wrong.

General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) may start producing the Chevrolet Beat in the U.S., a vehicle which according to Bloomberg News is more than a foot shorter than any other vehicle and whose 40-mile-per-hour fuel efficiency is only topped by hybrids. The new service points out that the the automaker has little choice because its current market value is SMALLER than Matchbox car maker Mattel Inc. (NYSE: MAT) and a 10th of what it was in 2000. It only took GM billions of dollars in losses but hey better late than never, right?

Don't get be wrong. I have nothing against the Chevrolet Beat. Judging from the pictures I have seen online. it looks okay, not my cup of tea, but then again that's why we have chocolate and vanilla. Thanks to Al Gore, I understand about global warming and feel guilty that I own the small SUV that I drive. Nonetheless, the Chevrolet Beat and other cars like it scare me.

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.

Clean coal has hit speed bump on the path to the nation's cleaner energy future.

The United States Government has canceled support for a clean coal demonstration project after the project's development costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, citing the need to limit taxpayer exposure, according to a New York Times report.

Further, more than a decade into the research process, it remains an unanswered question whether the clean coal technology -- capturing and injecting carbon dioxide back into the ground -- can be executed in a safe and cost-effective manner.

Among other hurdles, scientists need to determine which soil formations are most environmentally appropriate for holding and organically processing the carbon dioxide, and that don't contain the risk of dioxide bubbling back to the surface, or polluting ground water.

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