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.

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.

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.

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.

Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, an economist, poses the question, "Will CO2 emissions limits lead to a zero-sum global economy?" – an economy characterized by stagnant (or declining) incomes, and armed conflict among nations?

Wolf argues that increased energy consumption per capita, primarily oil from fossil fuel, has been a key causal factor in creating the plus-sum economic world we live in, which he calls the positive-sum economy. Or in other words, rising energy consumption has helped produce rising productivity / real incomes / wealth, and the expanding global economy that we know today.

In addition, Wolf further argues that rising energy consumption transformed politics -- assisting both the birth of democratic politics at home and more-consensual foreign relations among states -- by increasing the size of the economic pie. Elites in a country, Wolf argues, became more willing to tolerate the enfranchisement of the masses because it was in the elites' economic interest to do so: i.e. that energy consumption created a more-productive (and more-valuable) citizenry with higher incomes.

Internationally, a nation's gains from the increased trade that characterizes the high-energy consumption era far exceed its gains from making war with another nation: the plus-sum global economy that trade produces supports today's norm of trade as opposed to the limited-sum world's norm of conflict and war.

The Bush administration opposes a United Nations draft proposal calling on developed nations to make binding emissions cuts of 25%-40% by 2020, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

A U.N. draft document will call for industrialized nations to implement those cuts as part of a proposal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, Reuters reported Monday. Representatives from 187 nations are meeting in Bali for global climate talks.

Environmental and international group leaders hope to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, with the new U.N. agreement, preferably by 2009. The United States is the only developed nation to reject the Kyoto Protocol. U.S. senior climate negotiator Harlan Watson said Monday that the U.S.'s "principal difficulty with having any numbers in the text to begin with is that it might prejudge outcomes,'' Bloomberg News reported.

So far, China's effort to slow its economy is not working.

China's economy continues to grow at double-digit rates. Commodity and resource utilization remain high, speculative excesses abound, and exports? China's trade surplus keeps soaring, with the United States and Europe incurring rising trade deficits.

The Chinese government announced that over the past 12 months, China's trade deficit with Europe increased an alarming 46% to $135 billion, The New York Times reported. Over the same period, the trade deficit with the United States did not increase as much, in percentage terms, up 18%, but in absolute terms the U.S. still leads the pack with a daunting $162 billion trade deficit.

Surging trade surplus

Further, during the past 12 months, China's overall trade surplus exceeded $250 billion, including a record $27 billion in October 2007.

Detroit's Big Three, General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and Chrysler have often been criticized for their bureaucracy, slow decision making, and, at times, outright inertia...even when conditions required bold, decisive action.

There's the joke about the five General Motors executives that go on a camping trip in the Great Midwest. Suddenly, they spot a bear 600 feet away and charging toward where they're seated at the camp site.

Each executive has a rifle and is ready to shoot the bear to defend the campers, and the senior executive says: "Allright, Executives, ready, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim..."

It was June. I was a little broke. And my Mercedes SUV, that I'd purchased when I was single, young and foolish, got a flat tire. The tires were ready to be replaced anyway, and there was no "patching." It was dead.

That wasn't all that was wrong; I'd done a mental list of nits and major issues (like, the front windows wouldn't go up or down; the windshield was leaking; the rest of the tires were pretty shot) that added up to between $1500 and $3500, depending on how far I wanted to go. Really, it was $1000 to get the car in working order again.

I had two children, ages four and one. My house was within a few blocks of three bus lines. The whole family had bicycles and we live in a city that values alternative modes of transit. I was starting to really freak out about global warming; would my kids even have wineries nearby by the time they reached the age of consent? The papers said no.

The next day, a friend emailed. "Would anyone like to participate in a car diet?" There were freebies; a bus pass, use of a Flexcar, some goodies for our bike. We handed over our keys a few weeks later in a ceremony, with the mayor and the Channel 8 news crew standing by.

In a move reminiscent of the tobacco lawsuits against Philip Morris years ago, the State of California has sued General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM), Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), Toyota Motor Corporation (ADR) (NYSE: TM), Daimler Chrysler AG (NYSE: DCX), Honda Motor Co. Ltd (ADR) (NYSE: HMC) and Nissan Motor Co. The theory is that the car companies created a "public nuisance" that will cost the state in infrastructure and health expenses. What the state will seek in damages is not clear.

At first blush, it would appear that these claims would eventually be no more successful than the smokers' suits were. The state had the power to set emissions standards or even to ban the sale of cars by manufacturers that built cars that did not fit criteria set by the state. Since the California legislature never took those steps, it will probably be difficult to claim monetary awards to offset the state's costs.

It is also likely that the issue of whether the cars accounted for all of the health and structural damage would be difficult to prove. Factories and other sources can also be tagged for producing toxic gas.

What the suit does do is open a Pandora's box of legal costs for the car companies, especially if other states follow California's lead. As Altria and other tobacco companies discovered, even winning cases can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There was a time when Altria's legal costs were over $1 million a day.

Even if the car companies win against claims like those that have been brought by California, they could lose. The industry is not in any shape to shoulder that distraction or costs of litigation across a number of states.

Douglas McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.