So here we are in a shaky economy tottering on a ledge and along comes the EPA ready to shove it right off. As The Wall Street Journal reported: “The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions – at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.”

In other words, the war on the so-called greenhouse gases is officially under way – and it is going to be expensive. Each passing month brings us closer to capping, taxing or cutting the gases thought to cause global warming.

I don’t think investors appreciate how far-reaching such efforts could be. And there will be definite winners and losers as a result. Some of these are far from obvious and some are in plain sight.

The first obvious big loser is American coal, from which we get half about of our electricity needs. Already, you see companies reacting to this news. Consol Energy (NYSE:CNX), a big coal company, said it halted two big mines in Appalachia because of uncertainty over the costs of pending new regulations. If you own a U.S. coal miner, I’d fold the hand, so to speak.

Coal-fired power plants look like big losers, too. And the utility AES, the biggest user of coal in North America, is looking to shutter some of its coal plants. It is also looking at how high rates would have to go to comply with possible rule changes. In some places, rates could rise as high as 50%. It is no sure thing that AES could get such rate increases.

Natural gas-fired plants, though, may be one winner relative to coal, because natural gas burns cleaner than coal. Already, in just the last few months, as the market ponders talk of new emissions caps, you could see gaps opening up between coal utilities and natural gas utilities.

Though the new rules could be a year or more away, those gaps may well widen over time as investors anticipate the likely bad ending for coal. So I would not own a U.S. coal utility right now, either. It is no fun wearing a target on your back – especially since the guy throwing the darts makes all the rules.

Instead, I’d rather be the guy who gets to make and sell the new equipment that helps utilities “clean up.” The demand for cleaner-burning fuels will boost the need for its high-quality pumps, valves and seals. These products work to improve efficiency and emissions. Two similar companies I’m keeping an eye on include Fluor Corp. (NYSE:FLR) and Foster Wheeler (NASDAQ:FWLT).

But there is much more…

Besides carbon dioxide, the EPA also named five other industrial gases to its hit list, including methane. This could have an impact on landfills, which emit methane and carbon dioxide. One of the companies I am following is Covanta (NYSE:CVA), which turns waste into energy, essentially replacing landfills. For every one ton of trash burned in a waste-to-energy facility, one ton less of carbon dioxide is released into the air. It also captures the methane gas.

So again, big penalty for those who run landfills – but potentially a boon to those with solutions, like Covanta.

There are many other ways the EPA’s ruling could affect the lay of the land. The EPA could raise fuel-efficiency requirements on cars. It could require more hybrids and electric cars. This would be good for makers of car batteries. It would also be good for the things that go into making more efficient car batteries – such as lithium or cobalt, which are ideas I prefer over the battery makers themselves.

The war on greenhouse gases could also dramatically affect our homes and offices. Worldwide, the energy we use to build, heat, cool and light buildings makes up about 40% of energy demand. This is even more energy than the world’s transportation networks guzzle.

Better insulation, new windows and even more efficient water heaters can make a big difference on the carbon footprint of a building. Just heating water alone can make up 15% of the energy used in a home.

Another company I am following is A.O. Smith (NYSE:AOS). This company has a dominant position in water heaters, as well as a rapidly growing business in China – where the need is more acute. It also makes heating and air conditioning systems. A good chunk of A.O. Smith’s sales come from replacement markets – just fixing what is in place. Stricter building codes and a need to cut energy use could be good for businesses like Smith’s.

However, this is not all driven by government’s iron hand. In fact, in some cases, it is just good business sense. The Empire State Building, for instance, is undergoing a major makeover. But it is one you can’t see from the outside. Instead, it’s all about the insulation, smart meters, new boilers and more. According to the Financial Times: “The retrofit of the Empire State Building will cost about $20 million, but its annual energy savings will be $4.4 million when it is complete.” That’s not a bad payback.

In any event, the efforts to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases – whatever their source – is an important story and sets up a lot of things for us to look deeper into in future letters. We are still early in this game.

Sincerely,
Chris Mayer

Source: How to Profit from the War on Greenhouse Gasses

If John McCain manages to pull off a surprise victory next week, Martin says biotech stocks will get a boost from fewer restrictions on drug prices.

This from Smart Profits Report:

One week from today, America will elect its next president.

What was a hotly contested race a few weeks ago now appears to be swinging in favor of Democratic candidate Barack Obama, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Election Night will be much less dramatic.

The question is: How will this major event and changing of the White House guard affects the economy, the stock market – and more importantly, individual investors? Many investors are already sick to death of the drama that the stock market has tossed at them this year, so aren’t likely to welcome much more.

Let’s take a look…

The Four-Year Presidential Cycle And Its Impact On The Stock Market

Despite the current rhetoric and hype surrounding the candidates’ respective policies, measures enacted typically don’t make any serious dent on the economy for a year or two after they’re passed into law.

Yale Hirsch, one of the co-authors behind the respected Stock Trader’s Almanac has studied the effect that presidential election cycles have on the stock market. And his research indicates that the market generally follows a pattern, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat administration wins the White House.

According to the theory, here are the stock market returns between 1948 and 2007…

• The first post-election year is typically the worst performer in the presidential cycle, with the S&P 500 posting a 7.3% return
• The second year sees the highest record of bear market bottoms, with the S&P recording a 10.1% advance.
• In the third year of the presidency, the market picks up dramatically, notching up a 22.9% gain.
• The final year of a presidency sees more uncertainty creep into the market, with a 12.1% gain. That’s still above average, though.

While the past four years haven’t followed the above trend, this is an entirely different time, with the U.S. experiencing an epic financial crisis right on top of the presidential election.

And the market could easily fall back into this pattern… because right on schedule, economists foresee recession conditions over the next two years.

The Post-Election Healthcare Environment

As an investor, if you’re looking for a map of how the next cycle will play out – and who could be affected the most – a lot depends on whether the winning candidate can live up to his promises. But that can depend largely on who controls Congress and the importance of the sector.

For example, areas like healthcare, energy, education, and defense are always going to be pretty heavily funded, no matter who is running the show.

With regard to healthcare, this election is once again filled with candidates’ promises of how they’re going to create affordable healthcare for all Americans – a task that always seems to be easier said than done.

According to the International Strategy and Investment (ISI) research firm, a McCain administration would probably represent good news for firms like Pfizer (NYSE:PFE), Genzyme Corp. (NASDAQ: GENZ) and Genentech (NYSE:DNA), since they’d be less likely to face restrictions on drug prices.

In addition, McCain may not opt for as much of an overhaul of healthcare as Obama, so managed care firms could see an advantage. Obama would seek changes to Medicare and crack down on medical malpractice areas, so look for managed care and insurance companies respectively to undergo Obama’s favorite word… change.

Since both men have espoused unique alternatives to our current system, the healthcare sector will see changes regardless though.

Look To Renewable Energy Firms… No Matter Who Wins

As for energy – one of the hottest spots on the market – both Obama and McCain support crucial efforts to explore alternative energy in order to relieve some of America’s dependence on getting energy from volatile nations.

Earlier this year, McCain even went so far as to offer a $300 million reward for anybody who could design a “battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” And both men attended former president Bill Clinton’s National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada, back in August.

McCain has also thrown his weight behind greater offshore drilling and “clean coal” production, right alongside ethanol production from corn. Obama has expressed more interest in other forms of alternative energy, such as wind and solar power – two areas that could receive more subsidies and mandates under his administration.

In this respect, ISI says solar leader like First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR), wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems (CPH:VWS) and waste-into-energy firms like Covanta Holding (NYSE:CVA) could see benefits.

The Battle For Headlines: Economy And Market vs. Obama And McCain

The bottom line here is that while both candidates are busy championing their ideas and policy proposals to the country and certain sectors and stocks will benefit more than others from a regime change, the overall stock market isn’t going to be as affected as some people might think.

According to John Merrill, chief investment officer of Tanglewood Wealth Management, the market isn’t really paying that much attention to the candidates, no matter how much both like to speak out. “Today, the market and the economy are shaping events much more than the presidential election.”

Source: The Presidential Election Cycle… What The Obama-McCain Battle Means For Stocks