The Lieberman-Warner Act didn't go anywhere, but you can bet that climate change will be the subject of congressional debate for years to come. (See this issue's feature.) That's why bankers should take former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsak's advice and get involved in the climate change discussion. There will be a lot of money in play throughout the discussion and bankers should make sure they get a piece of the pie.

The Lieberman-Warner Act, for example, would have generated millions of dollars through the sale of carbon credits. The legislation detailed how that money was to be spent - 20 percent was to be set aside for something called an "Adaptation Fund." Bankers can make legitimate claim to Adaptation Fund money. If the banking industry is going to be expected to finance the construction of eco-infrastructure, it sure would help if there was some money available to offset the risk.

The Farm Credit System is already heading down this path. Farm Credit System institutions want expanded powers; House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson has said they need the additional powers in order to finance new plants making ethanol and other bio-fuels because such credit is insufficient in traditional commercial markets. That's nonsense, of course, but the argument establishes Rep. Peterson's willingness to devote federal resources to institutions allocating credit to energy projects. He's not alone in Congress. Wouldn't it be nice if banks had access to that low-cost FCS capital to finance those projects Vilsak talks about?

There are other approaches, too. Perhaps a portion of the proceeds from a carbon credit auction or a carbon tax could be used to offset FDIC premiums, or they could go to the Federal Reserve so it could pay interest on mandated reserves. Or perhaps the money could be used to lower exam fees since regulators will have to be retrained to distinguish between a loan financing a sound eco-project from a loan financing a flimsy one.

My point is, there will be a lot of money at stake in the debate over climate change. It is going to cost the citizens of this country an unprecedented amount of money, and we really don't know if there will be any benefit. (I am not expecting any.) But since it seems as if we are heading down this path, the money is going to be collected and it is going to go to someone. It will go to the interests that speak up early in the debate, not to the interests that sit on the sidelines. Bankers can make a strong case that at least a little of it should go to them.