In my last Blog, I mentioned the ability to make money in the mobile-source industry.

Heresy, right?

Surely - "saving the world" AND 'capitalism' don't mix?!?

As a recap, I had mentioned that the answer was based on lack of focus on the myriad of small, portable, polluting powerplants (i.e. mobile sources).

I also talked about some recently unleashed creativity, which - coupled with the latest bankruptcy status of Chrysler and GM (Ford will follow suit - due to the fact that they must jettison their own pension obligations!) have identified new ways to solve the challenge, and at the same time, make money.

Heady words; yet - here is the crux of the topic:

MOBILE SOURCE IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, AND THE GREATEST SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

Mobile source is a full one-third of the GHG emissions around the world. Even if you don't believe in 'global warming', you cannot argue with much of the data. Further, even if (and this is an assumption) GHG gases are not the main culprit behind Global Warming; they are STILL a full 1/3 responsible for all health issues. So, the first point is simple:

It doesn't matter WHAT you believe about "Global Warming"; Cap-and-Trade is here to stay, and Global Warming fears will ensure that emissions (and fossil fuel dependence) will drop significantly in the coming years.

And so - like radio, microwave ovens, computers, the internet, HDTVs, and Reality TV - society is embracing a 'pay-as-you-go' stance on the quality of our atmosphere. Not too hard to conceive or understand, really. I mean - how long have we been paying for home water filters, air purifiers, or even - bottled water?

What a concept!

Okay - so, I can hear you now: "we PAY for what we want more of, and penalize what we want less of?" Is that my message?

In short - yes.

Yes it is - and that, my friends, is what a capitalistic society is based upon. In the end, it doesn't matter what we sell; buggy whips, micro-chips, nuclear bombs, water purifiers, or - clean air. Society pays for what they value, and society adapts around what they value. Here is a good case in point: GOLD.

Gold does not enhance a lifestyle, does not provide sustenance, and has no intrinsic value, and yet - society places a value on gold.

Why?

Lack of a resources' availability; i.e. how 'uncommon' it is. Sound familiar? Isn't 'clean air' a more recently 'uncommon' and/or highly unavailable resource? And - who is/are willing to invest in such a commodity?

Welcome to the world of 'Cap-and-Trade'. We will discuss this in the next blog...