As legislation on climate change languishes in Congress, some are targeting the business community for action on emissions. The U.S. mutual fund industry controls total assets of $12.3 trillion (U.S. GDP = $13.8 trillion). Domain over that scale of corporate scratch could make a big difference in the American carbon footprint if it were used to sway companies to cut their emissions.

Ceres, a national group working to integrate sustainability principles into capital markets, has just released a report on the state of shareholder climate resolutions among mutual funds. Resolutions often ask companies to disclose their emissions and create plans for reducing them. The group says that after years of turning a deaf ear to these proposals, the industry may be starting to listen. This is good news on the heels of a February plea by managers of some of the world's largest funds to federal agencies asking them to take action on climate change.

But don't break the rose-colored glasses out of the basement yet. Whereas in 2004, opposition was 78% it is now down to 65%. Previously, the common response to a shareholder climate resolution was outright opposition. Today, firms tend to just stay out of it through abstention. At the same time, says Ceres, many funds offer special climate-friendly investments, but do nothing to change overall business practices.

Ceres points out that firms are beginning to see the risks of global warming in the same way they evaluate other market dangers. "More mutual fund firms are waking up to the broad financial realities of climate change, but very few are integrating this awareness across all of their business activities, including proxy voting policies," said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. "Investors should be scrubbing their portfolios for climate risks just as they're now scrubbing them for hidden sub-prime risks."

However, the report does heap praise on Goldman Sachs for openly supporting these carbon-counting resolutions while promoting climate-related investments as well.

In response to the report, eco-biz nonprofit group Co-op America is asking Americans to pressure the 10 worst big money offenders, saying "It's not just the right thing to do; it's good business."

The reputation of electric vehicles seems to be going steadily downhill. First, was ZAP's mini-WorldCom scandal and now two of the biggest names in EV are involved in a lawsuit. According to The New York Times, Tesla Motors filed a suit against Fisker Automotive, claiming that the company stole trade secrets and design elements.

Renowned car designer and Fisker founder, Henrik Fisker along with his business partner are accused of entering into a deal to design Tesla's upcoming gas-battery 4-seater, called White Star, in order to sneak a peak at Tesla's design specs.

The story goes that Fisker received $875,000, purposely created a poor design for White Star, then launched a competing car (ironically called Karma) using the lifted secrets.

NYT quotes Tesla chairman (and rocket-maker) Elon Musk as saying, "The styling was substandard compared to what he unveiled for his product. He gave us an inferior work product, and it’s obvious why."

Tesla decided not to use the design, delaying production of the car by 3-6 months.

Both cars use a similar drive system, called serial hybrid, which uses a gas engine to charge a battery that runs the electric motor. Tesla plan to launch White Star in 2010 for around $65-70k, said the New York Times, while Karma will cost about $80,000.

Meanwhile, CNET is reporting that the ousted co-founder of Tesla, Martin Eberhard, was the original promoter of the serial hybrid system within the company. I think this will permanently cure me of the Silicon Valley hippy culture image I have of the alternative vehicles world. Maybe this just means that EV tech has really hit the big time, corporate shenanigans and all. Now they just need to make a profit.

Biofuels are a growing biz in the Midwest, but the shaky CO2 argument for ethanol is threatening to plow things up. To combat this issue, the state of Iowa is working to make their cash cow corn ethanol a little more eco-kind with a $2.3 million grant in algae.

Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc., which operates a 50 million gallon corn ethanol plant in Shenandoah, Iowa, will use the funds to install the capability to grow algae using the facility's carbon dioxide. The plan is to conduct a 195-day test to research the viability of algae production at the plant, where the yield is expected to be 8 kilograms per day.

Green Plains' partner on the project is GreenFuel Technologies Corp., based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which specializes in biofuel production from algae. The company believes that some of the advantages of algae include its ability to be grown year-round, fast growth, and its lack in dependence on clean water supplies.

"GreenFuel Technology has run several projects at major power plants in the United States," said Cary Bullock, Vice-President of Business Development for GreenFuel Technology. "However, we are especially excited about the Green Plains project because of the natural synergies between the algae and ethanol industries. The Green Plains project provides an opportunity to use an operational ethanol plant to further the body of knowledge of algae-based biofuels."

The project's partners say that oil from algae grows very efficiently, producing several thousand gallons per acre compared to about 65 gallons for an acre of soybeans. Still, I'm not sure even algae has enough green to make corn ethanol earthy. It might just end up getting kinda slimy.

The competition to produce current from the currents is going global. Britain has installed the first tide farm in Devon, UK and hopes to turn on the juice later this year. In New York City, a 6-turbine installation, called the Roosevelt Island Turbine Energy (RITE) project is the testing bed for a possible expansion at the site that could end up generating 10MW for up to 8,000 local homes. For now, though, the experiment only has enough oomph to serve the needs of a nearby grocery store.

Not to be left in Britain's or America's wake, Ontario, Canada has just announced $2.2 million in funding for a 15MW facility in the Ontario River near Cornwall. The Cornwall Ontario River Energy (CORE) project is expected to power about 11,000 homes, one of the first to use river currents rather than tides. The turbines will be provided by Verdant Power, who provided the blades for the RITE project as well.

If things go well, Canada could be convinced to tap its estimated 15,000 megawatts of available tide and river resources and lighting things up 11 million families.

Verdant says that their 16.4 foot diameter turbines pose little danger to fish since the blades turn at about 32 RPM and because "leading edges are very rounded and blunt." I'll certainly take them at their word (and their extensive monitoring), but an animation of the system looks like kind of like a watery death gauntlet.

Bonus Link: CNN has a wonderfully painful-to-watch report on the East River project, complete with clumsy NY accent and references to ill-fated "wise guys."