Environmental Bush

People were skeptical when Bush did this abrupt move to call on 15 nations to set targets to reduce greenhouse gases. Skeptical because the maneuver pre-empts what other G8 nations wanted to implement, not more talks as Bush called for but a real standard for reducing emissions. Indeed this is part of a pattern.

New penalties against Sudan — check. More dollars to fight AIDS in Africa — check. A respected internationalist to lead the World Bank — check. Friendly words about tackling global warming — check.

George Bush is ready to go to Europe.

His bag packed with a pre-emptive agenda he spent all week detailing, the president leaves Monday on a trip that will take him to six countries in eight days. Bush journeys from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, with the centerpiece of his travels a three-day summit in Germany with leaders from Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia.

The president made certain not to arrive empty-handed.

"The operative phrase ... that sums up the week is when the president said, 'We are a compassionate nation,'" said Charles Kupchan, director of Europe studies for the Council on Foreign Relations.

Most of Bush's presidency has been about "hard power" — fighting terrorism and waging the Iraq war — and still is. But heading into the Group of Eight meetings, he chose a different focus.

"He's cycling back to this nicer, kinder America," Kupchan said. "This is an agenda that is much more popular in Europe than the talk about fighting al-Qaida and chasing the Taliban through the mountains of Konar province" in Afghanistan, on the eastern border with Pakistan.

In one sense, Bush is making this move because he has to in order to get anything done internationally. Perhaps that's a good thing. But in the other sense, this is merely an attempt to get out in front of issues so they have the least impact possible to Republican causes and allies. The global warming talks are the best example. Bush is trying to talk the issue to death.

Jim Connaughton, the president's adviser on the environment [...] briefed reporters on the plan at noon.

"Will the new framework consist of binding commitments or voluntary commitments?" asked CBS News's Jim Axelrod.

"In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal," Connaughton answered.

Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

"I'm confused," Axelrod said. "Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?"

"The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal," the Bush aide repeated.

Axelrod had his answer. "Voluntary," he concluded.

"Well," said Connaughton, "I want to be careful about the word 'voluntary.' "

This isn't a plan but a series of talks that may or may not arrive at a plan. If you looked closely at the other "plans" Bush announced this week I'm certain you'd see the same thing. Nancy Pelosi rightly called Bush in denial about the issue, and vowed to pass tough initiatives through the Congress. Of course, there's been a lot of talk and somewhat less action. We have to push harder to ensure some real action on climate change before it's too late. I'm more in favor of a carbon tax, while what they're discussing in the Congress is more like mandatory emissions caps (I don't know if they'll incorporate a market-based cap and trade system as well. Whatever they come up with, it's better than talking about it while the globe sizzles.