As the world continues to fight the enormous battle over global warming, some still continue to oppose it, even in the face of tremendous evidence, logic, and scientific corroboration.

And while I may be a proponent of stemming global climate change, I certainly respect the opinions coming from the other side.

But recently, the other side has been using arguments against global warming to further its political and economic agendas. And this is what I have a problem with.

Take, for example, the energy legislation that went through the Senate last month. Before the vote, there was talk of increased fuel economy standards, a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS), and a measure that would take over $20 billion away from Big Oil to invest in cleaner technologies.

Only the increased fuel economy standards passed--and that was only because a compromise curbed an additional 4% increase in efficiency every year after 2020.

This is what really grinds my gears. I can appreciate skepticism with regard to anthropogenic global warming. What I can't understand is using that stance to oppose measures that 1) cause no harm to the environment or human health and 2) would cause no harm to, or even help, the economy.

Yet this is what happens day in and day out inside the Capital Beltway.

Instead of letting the market decide what should happen--which is starting to occur--Washington has turned global warming into a debate not about what is right, but about political dollars from industry lobbyists.

Take that June energy bill in the Senate again. Republican senators from the South provided nearly half the votes needed to make sure a national RPS was not established.

Nationally, about half the states have already adopted their own form of RPS. Only one of those states is in the South.

Their argument can be summed up nicely in this quote from Chris Hobson, senior vice president for research and environmental affairs at Southern Co.: "If we are irrational about it and we cripple our economy or cripple our industry and we realize carbon dioxide wasn't the source of the problem, then we'll be real regretful."

Regretful? About what? That we prevented millions of tons of CO₂ from entering the atmosphere that aside from the environmental aspects have caused a 160% rise in childhood asthma with an annual treatment cost of $3.2 billion in the US alone?

And then, of course, there's the economic argument, which has about as much force as a three-year-old arguing for more candy.

Old Habits Die Hard

You see, the South has always relied on coal for its electricity. In fact, its two largest utilities--Southern Co. (NYSE: SO) and Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE: DUK)--produce about two thirds of their power from coal, mostly burned in older plants that are not yet upgraded with cleaner--burning coal is never completely clean--coal technologies.

Southern Co. puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other U.S. utility. One of its plants in Georgia has been the nation's single largest emitter of carbon dioxide for several years.

Duke Energy ranks third.

Many of their plants also rank among the worst in emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin, and other pollutants that cause smog, respiratory problems and acid rain.

So is it any surprise that these utilities are among the biggest lobbyists and political donors in Washington, arguing that national emissions reductions and renewable energy standards would drive up utility bills and hurt their businesses?

Try telling that to the AES Corporation (NYSE: AES) based in Arlington, Virginia, which, last time I checked, was south of the Mason-Dixon line.

In addition to burning coal and natural gas, this company has quickly been accelerating electricity production from wind, water and biomass. Plus, they're investing heavily in carbon offsets and reduction technology.

And take a look at their chart over the past five years compared to
Duke Energy. AES is up nearly 600% while Duke has posted no gain at all. In fact, Duke has actually lost a few percentage points.

I guess they must not be doing all that well on the coal front. But you could never tell that from their attitude.

Another common argument by these companies is that they don't have renewable resources like solar in the Southwest and wind in the Midwest.

This is another bogus claim. There is solar radiation everywhere on earth. In fact, Germany--not the sunniest of places--leads the world in installed capacity per capita, and is on pace to overtake Japan in terms of total installed megawatts.

Not to mention that many leading scientists say Southern states have plenty of alternative energy potential. Utilities have simply grown comfortable with cheap, dirty coal and haven't been forced to change.

"If you look at other regions of the country where renewables have taken off, it's been because of mandates, and that's why you haven't seen it take off in the South," said Nicholas Rigas, director of the South Carolina Institute for Energy Studies at Clemson University. "Once the development starts it will be just as successful as it is in other states."

Boy, he hit the nail on the head with that one.

And we've got the numbers to prove it.

In fact, in a few weeks, we'll be revealing the names of two utilities that are leading the push toward cleaner electricity production...and making a boatload in the process.

Our Green Chip Review members will hear about these companies first. So if you're not already a member to this free service, click here to sign up now.

Until next time,

Nick

"Energy stocks... The only way a human is going to make any money."

-- Matt Simmons, Peak Oil's first and most vocal proponent,
and founder of the country's last pure play energy investment banking firm.

Follow the money trail. Sign up for Energy and Capital now.