Whose side are they on?

The US Climate Action Partnership includes several notable and powerful environmental organizations, specifically the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and World Resources Institute. So one might expect that any plan endorsed by the partnership would be relatively strong and science-based, even if the group is dominated by industry members, like Duke Energy, Ford and Alcoa. But that isn't the way the USCAP's recently released strategy for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is being received. Indeed, by supporting the plan, more than a few enviros may have just cost themselves some valuable credibility points.

The most critical difference between what most climatologists who have thought about the subject think we need to do and what USCAP Blueprint for Legislative Action calls for involves the baseline for carbon dioxide emissions. The science says we need to bring emissions down to at least one fifth of what we were generating in 1990, and do it by 2050 at the latest, if we want to keep the increase in global average temperatures below 2° C, which is what is usually considered to be the most we can afford without triggering catastrophic changes. That means reducing emissions to about 4.3 billions tonnes of CO2.

The USCAP plan lays out a schedule that wouldn't even see total emissions fall before 2012, and may even allow for a rise of 2% above 2005 by then. The report explains this in a not-entirely-transparent footnote: "The 2012 and 2020 ranges represent agreed upon boundaries within which individual USCAP members will advocate for their preferred targets."

And in the longer term, to 2050, USCAP members have agreed on a goal of 20% of emissions as measured in 2005. Of course, emissions grew considerably between 1990 and 2005. They rose by more than 1% a year to 1999 and since then by around 3% a year. So if we were to endorse and implement the USCAP plan, by 2050, emissions would be done to only around 5.8 Gt of CO2, a sizable difference.

One could argue that, because everyone knows the long-term USCAP target is insufficient to get there, it's really just a way of introducing Americans to the kind of measures that will be coming further down the line. But the short-term target's inadequacies suggest otherwise. The inclusion of allowances for offsets is also disappointing to some observers.

One environmental group that used to be part of the USCAP couldn't swallow the concessions to industry. The National Wildlife Federation pulled out as a result. More important will be the reaction from Rep. Henry Waxman, the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to Stacy Morford of Solve Climate, Waxman "whipped the rug out from under the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (U.S. CAP) before the group even had a chance to present its climate action recommendations" although I'm not sure what the basis for such a description of Waxman's actions is. Instead all we have is:

Waxman said he wants a comprehensive, science-based bill on climate and energy through his committee by the Memorial Day recess.

U.S. CAP's climate plan falls far short of what scientists say is the minimum necessary to protect the planet, and it was abundantly clear to the committee that the proposal was lacking in the merit Waxman had just called for.

So I think we'll just have to wait and see how Waxman's committee, and Congress in general, react in the coming weeks. Joe Romm of Climate Progress calls it "a dead end -- and an even deader starting point" and says the NRDC, EDF, and WRI should be ashamed for backing it.

That may be too strong. After all, the Kyoto Protocol was never going to accomplish much in the way of actual emissions reductions. I remember reading -- in Nature, I think -- that even if the US had ratified Kyoto and met its goals, the world would have avoided one half of one tenth of one degree of warming. And that's probably a generous estimate. But you have to start somewhere. We can always tighten the long-term targets as technology improves, especially if our short-term targets can spur more research and development.

On the other hand, a plan that calls for no reductions by 2012 does seem at odds with even the most cautious approach to climate change mitigation, will do nothing to encourage R&D, and it is surprising to see such powerhouses of environmental lobbying sign on.