Consider the biofuels backlash.

The British government’s top environmental advisers had some choice words on the recent push for more biofuels. Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, warned of a “perverse outcome” saying “If one started to use biofuels…and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane, . . .

WSJ’s Environmental Capital thinks that rolling back biofuel mandates could be good for the environment and might even be politically appealing. But they simultaneously point out that the biofuel surge has been credited by some as shaving as much as 15 percent off the cost of oil. Additionally, with so much bipartisan support for biofuels in the U.S., it seems unlikely that the American voters would embrace a sudden desertion of an industry pegged as a solution to global warming and energy independence. In fact, the “insane” and “profoundly stupid” often play quite well in American politics.

Indeed, and every other nation's politics. But we're talking big money here.

The Wall Street Journal finally posted its conversation with Kleiner Perkins green VC John Doerr from its recent ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara. The eco-biz magnate, who’s firm is investing a third of its portfolio, or $250 million, in greentech, puts greentech investing on a scale between the Internet and biotech, in terms of dollar size and time to profitability.

While Internet companies can become profitable in less than five years with about $25 million in equity (he refers to Google, Amazon and EA), biotech firms need $1 billion and more than 10 years (KP invested in Genentech), Doerr says. In contrast, greentech firms like Kleiner portfolio fuel-cell company Bloom Energy has needed $250 million and 7 years to deliver a product. The pay off, Doerr says, is that the markets are so much larger for greentech investing: $6 trillion for the energy market, compared to $100 billion for the Internet.

Smart and sane policies have no hope of competing with these green backs. No policy that does any good for the environment has any chance.

. . . a strange term has arisen in the climate debate: a cap and trade “safety valve.” Also called a “cost ceiling,” a safety valve is an escape hatch built into a cap and trade system that provides a definite economic bottom line. If the price of carbon emissions moves above a predetermined level, a governing body could issue more credits to bail out emitters who hit their polluting heads on the ceiling.

These sorts of artificial cost controls are unprecedented in existing emission control systems. Neither the ongoing European carbon trading experiment nor the highly successful U.S. sulfur emissions trading scheme have such ejection seats.

The EU used a different method. They undermined the system before it began by issuing so many credits that they were cheap. As with all the EU climate efforts, it's all rhetoric. No progress is actually made on emissions.

But that's OK since no one seriously cares. It's a fad, just a passing fashion.

Shame can be a much stronger driver of behavioral change than positive reinforcement. A mandatory note on my Facebook page that lets everyone know how much I’ve driven, or how many plane flights I’ve taken since the beginning of 2008, would be a bigger incentive for me to cut down on fossil-fuel-based transportation than some kind of prize if I succeeded in cutting down. . .

With our lives constantly connected through broadband and various social networks, the network effect will inevitably start to have an impact on our energy consumption and carbon footprints — and, hopefully, it’ll be a big enough movement to eventually effect global warming.

If every single green tard in the universe went on a diet it would have no effect on AGW. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of world emissions. There are many better ways to have a more significant effect, but they aren't fashionable.

Investors see dancing dollar signs in exploiting the fashion tards. Stupid and insane policies are a lock. When both business and fashion are singing from the same song book, policy makers are sure to hear. That it's all a circle jerk doesn't matter to politicians. Pay's the same.

Update:

Nudge Noogies

Before I unveil my plan to combat global warming using mood rings and glowing lapel pins, let me explain the scientific rationale. . .

We’re not good at making immediate sacrifices for an abstract benefit in the future. And this weakness is compounded when, as with climate change, we have a hard time even understanding the problem or the impact of our actions today. . .

With the right prompting, we’ll make sacrifices for the common good and perform acts of charity that we’d never do for any amount of pay. We’ll reform our behavior strikingly to conform with social norms. We’ll even make astute cost-benefit judgments if we get simple, clear feedback . . .

The authors of “Nudge,” Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, agree with economists who’d like to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by imposing carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade system, but they think people need extra guidance.

“Getting the prices right will not create the right behavior if people do not associate their behavior with the relevant costs . . .

It would be still more powerful, he and Mr. Sunstein suggest, if you knew how your energy consumption compared with the social norm.

Taxes, caps and energy correctness won't do diddly about global emissions. These are the things people do to avoid dealing with real issues.

I’d like to see a new green fad for electronic jewelry with real-time displays of carbon footprints. These could be mood rings, bracelets, lapel pins or anything else that could change color depending on how much electricity you use, how much gasoline your car burns, how much you travel. . .

Besides putting the enthusiasm of greens to practical use, this fashion statement might also inject some realism into the debate about global warming. Once you start keeping track of all the energy you use, you begin to see the difficulties of making drastic reductions — and the difference between effective actions and ritual displays. . .

Here's your sign.