It’s time for a true confession. I don’t believe in climate science.

That’s because I’m a rational person. Belief is important in my life and I apply the term to things involving faith. Faith is how we believe when there is no rational basis for a decision – which doesn’t mean its irrational or wrong, just that there is no evidence to support the view taken. Faith and belief often apply to matters of the spiritual realm. But they also apply to matters of a more worldly nature, where the capacity for faith and belief has framed many positive developments in humanity over history. Despite the lack of supporting evidence, Churchill believed the allies would win WWII and Mandela believed majority rule would come, relatively peacefully, to South Africa. Faith is a powerful driver of human behaviour.

However, I don’t “believe” in climate science because it’s not a religious or a faith question.

Much has been written lately about the emerging battle between China and the United States in the race to a low-carbon future. While the US clearly has considerable advantage with its history of success in innovation and technology, its lack of responsiveness, to date, is seeing the advantage steadily move to China.

There is great irony in this. For decades, many western companies have argued against stronger environmental policies on the grounds of loss of competitiveness to China and the developing world – so-called carbon leakage. The argument has been that if western countries made their companies behave more cleanly, Chinese companies would be able to out-compete them because they could pollute freely and therefore have lower costs.

What’s been happening while the west has been delaying action, partly in response to this argument, is that China has caught up and is now seriously pursuing a low-carbon economy. Do they want to save the world? No, they want to own it.

Beware the coming climate storm. A moment is approaching when science and markets will collide, but then merge, with chilling consequences for investors who miss the moment, and great excitement for those who are well prepared.

The signs are all around us now. Signs that a storm of climate action will soon rage through the economy, sweeping away denial and, along with it, those companies, politicians, investors and industries that aren’t ready.

Signs like our past two opposition leaders and Prime Ministers being removed with climate change a central issue in their downfalls. Signs like 2008 being the first year when the money invested in new renewable energy generation projects was greater than that invested in new fossil fuel energy generation. Signs like the last decade being the hottest on record, as of course each decade has been since 1980. Signs like the first new car company IPO in the USA for half a century being a disruptive electric car company.

There is great investment and excitement now in renewables, with over $100 billion invested in 2008 and the same in 2009, despite the uncertain financial climate. Yet we see growth in coalmines, new coal export facilities and a lack of action in politics in Australia and the US. What is an investor to do with such confusing signals?

For over a decade I have gone out of my way to buy fuel from BP. They’ve always seemed the best of the bad, with their solar business, climate policy leadership and forward thinking culture and people. The other day I couldn’t bring myself to do it. In fact I doubt I’ll ever drive into a BP station again.

Although BP has rather bigger problems on its mind than whose fuel I buy in Australia, while driving past I started considering a potential development that would certainly get their attention. It all starts with BP’s CEO Tony Hayward now famous approach to leadership on environmental questions. He proudly explained his views in a frank speech at Stanford University last year. He said too many BP people were “working to save the world” whereas they should focus on making money because BP’s “primary purpose in life is to create value for shareholders.”

I understand quite a bit about saving the world and about creating value for shareholders. I’ve spent roughly half my working life as an environmental campaigner, including as global head of Greenpeace, and the other half as a business owner and corporate advisor working with the CEOs of a number of the world’s largest companies. The former taught me how people think and act on environmental issues, the latter taught me about the relationship between profits and good corporate citizenship. BP’s Deep Horizon disaster may bring these two issues together in ways that I never expected. As a result Tony Hayward may, ironically and unintentionally, do more to “save the world” than anyone before him at BP. Here’s why.

Amongst all the focus on carbon trading around the world, the power and simplicity of taxes has taken a bit of a back seat. This may be changing with new moves in China and Australia, along with renewed debate elsewhere, to use direct taxes and charges to drive social and environmental objectives.

With trading schemes struggling to get up in democracies like Australia and the US, and governments everywhere facing huge mountains of debt, taxes may start to make a comeback. China is reported to be considering a carbon tax from 2012 and is also directly targeting high-energy users like aluminium by dramatically increasing their electricity charges as reported here. In Australia, where the government has shelved plans for carbon trading until 2013 after it failed to get the legislation through the Senate and decided the issue was politically unappealing, there is now a proposal for a mining “super profits tax”.