Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) is again making a charge into becoming an even greener eco-company than it already is. The world's largest retailer has stipulated that it wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its global supply chain by 2015. The example Walmart gave to illustrate the point: its reduction efforts would be like taking more than 3.8 million cars off the road for an entire year.

The Copenhagen Accord sets targets for reducing greenhouse gases worldwide. President Obama, arfter meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South African President Jacob Zuma, formally announced that an agreement had been struck. Some of the specifics include:

• The developed countries will commit to providing $100 billion a year by 2020 "to address the needs of developing countries." The amount is needed to provide a truly global effort at reducing greenhouse gases.
• The countries recognize the vital role of reducing deforestation, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gases.

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.

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.

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.