KEY POINTS:
In a last-ditch - and almost certainly unsuccessful - bid to fend off international criticism of his climate change policies, President George W. Bush yesterday called on 15 of the world's biggest polluting countries, including China and India, to agree on a target for reducing greenhouse gases by
the end of 2008.
But the White House again rejected a global carbon-trading programme permitting countries to buy and sell carbon credits.
US officials also ruled out specific energy efficiency targets, another measure advocated by the European Union, arguing that "one size fits all" standards would be unworkable.
Nor did it embrace the German suggestion of a so-called "two-degree" strategy, whereby world temperature levels would increase no more than 2C before being brought down.
Experts say that in practice, that target would require a global halving of 1990 emission levels by 2050.
A leaked memo last week spoke of Washington's "fundamental opposition" to such a scheme.
Instead, in a major address here a week before the G8 summit in Germany at which global warming will top the agenda, Bush urged a series of meetings starting this year.
These would bring together countries identified as the main emitters of the gases blamed for global warming. They would include the US, China, India - all of them either opposed to, or exempted from, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - as well as Japan and major European countries.
Washington refused to ratify that agreement, which called on industrialised countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012 - ostensibly because the absence of big emerging economies such as China and India made it meaningless.
A decade later, it is again at odds with its EU allies.
And Bush's vague promise yesterday to work with other countries for "a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012" - coupled with the standard US demand for an end to trade tariffs on clean energy technologies - will do nothing to satisfy his critics.
The new American plan as usual places its faith in free-market mechanisms and the power of technology to solve the problem, given the right incentives.
"The world is on the verge of great breakthroughs that will help us become better stewards of the environment," Bush declared.
Under his scheme, individual countries would establish "midterm management targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs."
The 15-nation talks would bring together industry leaders from various sectors involved in the production and consumption of energy, including transport, power generation and alternative fuels.
But for longstanding critics of alleged US inertia and indifference to climate change, Bush's proposals were simply more of the same - a transparent attempt to create the impression that the US was not dragging its heels.
The speech was proof that the Administration had a "do-nothing" approach to global warming, said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the centre-left Center for American Progress thinktank in Washington. The European and Japanese pleas for action "add to the voices of many big corporations such as Dow, Shell, General Electric and General Motors".
But they were falling on deaf ears in the White House, Weiss added.
However British Prime Minister Tony Blair hailed Bush's remarks as a step forward. "Without America and China in this deal, the rest of the world frankly can agree whatever it wants but it's not going to have the effect of improving the environment," he said.
"The important thing is, for the first time America is saying it wants to be part of a global deal."
In fact, the White House has become increasingly marginalised in the US over climate change.
The Democratic-controlled Congress is pressing ahead with legislation, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi last week led a bi-partisan Congressional delegation for talks in Germany on the issue.
With California in the forefront, US states in the northeast and on the Pacific coast are adopting their own regulations, and even the Supreme Court has rebuked the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to regulate emission standards for new vehicles.
- Independent
He said this but here's what he really meant ...
From the President's speech in Washington yesterday:
'In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it.'
Translation: In recent years my refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of global warming has contributed to my record low poll ratings. So now I have to look interested.
'The US takes this issue seriously.'
Translation: Al Gore takes this issue seriously, his movie was a hit and it's causing me no end of grief.
'By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases.'
Translation: By the end of next year, I'll be weeks away from the end of my presidency and this can be someone else's problem.
'To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gases, including nations with rapidly growing economies such as India and China.'
Translation: We will look as busy as we can without doing anything.
'The new initiative I am outlining will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany.'
Translation: We'll put the brakes on the more robust German proposal. If dialogue continues we won't have to abide by any decisions.
'Each country would establish midterm management targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and needs.'
Translation: Nobody will be obliged to take any painful decisions.
'Over the past six years, my Administration has spent, along with the Congress, more than $12 billion in research on clean-energy technology.'
Translation: But we've spent a lot more mollycoddling the oil and gas industries. We're the world's leader in figuring out ways to power our economy while looking after the environment.