"Aspirational" goals hardly the stuff of a real climate change program

Bush called for a "long-term global goal" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as mid-term national targets for specific countries. He said he would convene the first of a series of meetings this fall with 15 countries responsible for 80% of the world's emissions to set goals for cutting emissions.

Bush said he wanted to have a plan in place by the end of 2008, shortly before he leaves office, establishing a "new framework" for when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. The hard work of implementing that strategy would, of course, fall to Bush's successor.

The proposal was the lead story in both the New York Times and the Washington Post, both of which reported it as a policy "shift," because, as the Times said, the White House has long resisted setting firm limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Bush is opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions, which many regard as a key component of any plan to combat global warming, and there was nothing in his remarks to suggest that Bush wants to set "firm limits." In fact, a scant two hours after Bush spoke his top environmental advisor underscored how little the administration is ready to commit to.

When asked at a press conference if the new framework will consist of binding or voluntary commitments, James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, responded: "In this instance, you have a long term aspirational goal?"

Aspirational, as in a yearning? A longing?

The administration plans to bring its proposal to the G8 meeting of industrial nations next week in Germany. It has already rejected a proposal from Germany to limit the increase in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), which experts say is inevitable, given the concentration of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. To meet that target, global emissions would have to be reduced 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.

"We don't think that's a practical approach," Connaughton said. "You can't manage the temperature. You can manage emissions."

The timing of the proposal follows a familiar pattern. In 2001, the administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates reductions in industrial countries, without offering an alternative other than endorsing voluntary domestic programs to reduce emissions. At that point, it wasn't clear when, or if, the protocol would enter into force. But when it did, in February 2005, the administration apparently decided it couldn't allow the Kyoto process to be the sole international mechanism for combating climate change.

In July 2005, it announced the Asia Pacific Partnership among the US and five Asian nations to develop and deploy low emissions and energy efficient technologies. The partnership was not intended to replace the Kyoto process, but to run on a parallel track, the administration said.

The new proposal came on the eve of a G8 meeting where climate change is a key agenda item; against a backdrop of increasing criticism of the administration's failure to take more forceful measures; and when the international community is in the midst of a multi-year process to negotiate an agreement to control global emissions after the Kyoto enforcement period ends in 2012.

"What the President is saying is, let's not wait until the last minute, let's start working on ways forward," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

But with only 18 months left in the eight year Bush presidency, in politcial terms the administration has waited virtually until the last minute to come up with a propsal that is not only late, but may be too little.