Being in the middle of the road means you take fire from all sides, apparently. That’s what the U.S. Climate Action Partnership is learning after unveiling its blueprint for government action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

Jagger_art_257_20090115140420.jpg

No satisfaction (AP)

Pretty much everybody has something nasty to say about the proposals, the fruit of two years of work at the group which encompasses big companies as well as environmental groups. Many environmentalists attacked the plan for being too weak; plenty of politicians think the group is going too far.

House Republicans tore into proposals presented by the group. Illinois Republican John Shimkus railed against cap-and-trade “shell games” that he says hide the cost of environmental regulations from consumers.

Other Republicans, like Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, ripped into US CAP’s “self-serving” proposals because of the way they’re structured. He zeroed in on the group’s advocacy of free emissions permits and its insistence that companies be allowed to meet emissions-reduction targets by using carbon-offset schemes:

“I’m totally bewildered that in this anti-earmark atmosphere, USCAP would promote what is basically just another request from special interest groups to take money out of taxpayer pockets. The notion that this bill will give significant allowances—with real monetary value—away for free is outrageous. I am also opposed to the inclusion of international and domestic offsets, which will compromise the strength of the market system and call into question the integrity of emission reductions.”

UPDATE: Keith Trent, Duke Energy’s chief policy architect, responds that USCAP’s call for a portion of free allocations is meant to cushion the transition for consumers. Since USCAP’s plan would channel those emission permits through local, regulated entities, “not a penny” of the value of the emissions permits would end up in shareholder hands, he said, and there would be no “windfall” profits for power companies. The National Association of Utility Regulators backs that idea as well.

Still, those two issues, as well as lowball intermediate emissions targets, drew the ire of environmentalists. The Union of Concerned Scientists said the blueprint needs “strengthening.” Environmental group Friends of the Earth focused on the same issues and called the blueprint “deeply flawed.” Environmental coalition 1Sky lambasted the plan’s “loopholes.” Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, or BICEP, which includes Nike, Starbucks, Levi Strauss, and Sun Microsystems, took aim at the plan’s emissions-reductions targets and dearth of renewable-energy goals.

To be sure, USCAP’s promoters were well aware they were bringing a compromise vision for climate action to Congress. Duke Energy chief executive and USCAP honcho Jim Rogers quoted the Rolling Stones in Thursday testimony before Congress: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you might find, you get what you need.”