An An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore talked about two canaries in the coal mine: the melting ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic. The changes happening in these two locations foreshadowed much deeper threats, he explained.

I’d like to suggest that we are seeing another canary in the coal mine, but of a very different sort. In fact, an encouraging sign of changes to come. (Can the “canary in the coal mine” analogy really be used for positive signs? The canary might not think so, but I am going to run with it.)

You see, earlier this week, Environmental Defense, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the World Resources Institute joined together to create the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP).

In of itself, this should come as no surprise. These are all like-minded organizations focused on environmental issues (”tree huggers” as my grandmother would say).

What may come as a surprise is that these organizations were joined by some of the largest energy and manufacturing companies in the country including: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, Florida Power & Light, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources.

This isn’t a group of people that you’d generally call environmentally friendly.

What may come as an even greater surprise is to hear what this band of companies is saying.

The organization put out a report called A Call for Action in which they put forth a set of design principals and recommendations.

The report starts off with the following summary:

Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption. Action sooner rather than later preserves valuable response options, narrows the uncertainties associated with changes to the climate, and should lower the costs of mitigation and adaptation.

The report then goes on to say:

For these reasons, we, the members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) have joined together to recommend the prompt enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable.

To be very clear here they want regulation. Specifically, they are asking congress to pass a nationwide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases (for more information on “cap and trade” systems see this previous article).

Let me just say that again. Several of the nation’s largest energy companies want Congress to pass regulation on greenhouse gases.

Further, they defend this saying:

“Action is not only justified, it’s critical — greenhouse-gas emissions are rising at an unprecedented rate,” said Peter Darbee, CEO of San Francisco-based PG&E, which provides energy to 5 percent of the U.S. market.

What could they possibly be thinking? Isn’t this exactly what they are supposed to oppose? Aren’t the big energy companies supposed to be the ones who are denying that climate change exists, that humans have any role in it, and that there is nothing we can do to stop it?

What the heck is going on to make these folks actually argue for regulation?

And here is that canary in the coal mine.

You see, these companies have realized that regulation is inevitable. And to these companies, the biggest fear is not regulation but, unpredictible, inconsistent, state-by-state regulation. You already have states like California setting targets for greenhouse gas emissions and groups of states trying to form broader solutions.

This can lead to a disasterous situation for energy companies who have to deal with different regulations in different states. More importantly, there is not predictability here — what is acceptable today might not be acceptable tommorow. This makes it terribly difficult to plan for the future.

PG & E’s CEO discussed this on on last night’s edition of All Things Considered, and said, “A number of businesses want to know what the rules will be.”

He went on to say, “If we are dragging our heels and opposing people who that are trying to deal with this issue, then they are not going to give us a seat at the table. But, if we are constructive and we help them, then we gain credibility and we have a way of developing the most practical and pragmatic solutions possible.”

There is no doubt that there will be disagreement about the rate and magnitude of the changes here, but I think it is a very good sign that some of these companies are realizing that change is inevitable and it is better for them to get ahead of the curve and participate in the change than to get run over by it.

Hopefully this is a leading indicator of where things are going in days and years to come.

I think the really critical question is which is going to happen faster — the melting of the ice caps or the melting of the resistance to change.