The Observer reported that Bush administration was heading for a u-turn on climate change and that he would announce a cap on emissions in his State of the Union Speech on Tuesday.

That was wishful thinking on the part of the Blair government in Britain.

Here was Bush's big statement on the environment (from the Whitehouse.gov transcript):

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

That was preceded by four paragraphs on energy supply.

Here's some excerpts from an NYT editorial:

Mr. Bush was true to form on one subject. The White House had promised nothing on global warming, and he delivered nothing. He mentioned “global climate change” but showed no sense of urgency on the issue. Nor was there any sign that he had even heard the ever-louder entreaties from Congress — and from many of his friends in the business community — that he support a national program of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

At one point, he did suggest that his proposals for alternative fuels and more efficient automobiles could also help reduce greenhouse gases. But these gains would be marginal — passenger vehicles account for only one-fifth of these gases. And even these gains will greatly depend on what alternative fuels are chosen.

On the possibility of extracting gasoline from coal, the editorial said:

The technology is well established. But refining and then burning a gallon of gasoline derived from coal would send nearly twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a conventional gallon of gasoline and would thus be a disaster for global warming. Trying to sequester the carbon dioxide underground during the refining process would be hugely expensive.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, some business leaders had wished the Bush administration had gone further, according to a Reuters story on the NYT website:

While supporting the White House nod to alternative energies such as ethanol, wind, solar and nuclear power, corporate executives meeting at the Swiss ski resort of Davos said they wanted Washington to lock in stricter U.S. emissions standards.

Bush declined in his annual State of the Union address to support mandatory caps on heat-trapping carbon gases that big U.S. companies such as General Electric Co. have pushed for, instead backing new technologies to cut the amount of gasoline used in the United States.

Environmentalists said Bush had failed to recognize the seriousness of climate change and his comments were driven by U.S. fears about oil supplies. ...

Alcoa chief executive Alain Belda said it was untenable for the U.S. climate change agenda to be set by individual states.

``I think the country needs one rule,'' he told a climate change panel at Davos, noting such a standard could reduce the risks for companies of adopting emissions-cutting technologies.

He said strong leadership from the United States, the top global source of greenhouse gases, could spur other less wealthy countries to tighten their emissions rules.

But Sunil Bharti Mittal, chairman of India's Bharti Enterprises warned it would not be easy for these countries.

``India is going to be a willing partner in discussing this issue. But clearly it's not a willing punching bag, because it has its limitations,'' he said.

``We, as a billion people, are going to be consuming a lot of services and goods that will create emissions. We will need technology, we will need money, but India will be willing to align with the world,'' he added.

``President Bush barely mentioned climate change in his speech. The few measures he did announce were about improving fuel use efficiency and developing alternative fuels, driven by fear about U.S. energy security,'' Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne said.

About 60 percent of U.S. petroleum supplies are imported.

``There was no mention of emissions trading, carbon taxes or promoting public transport,'' she said.

Her comments matched concerns in India, where some scientists say climate change will have a major impact.

``He is diluting the issue by talking in terms of cutting the United States' oil dependency, rather than in terms of the serious environmental consequences,'' said K. Srinivas, campaigner for climate change and energy for Greenpeace India.

Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said: ``The president's proposed actions to tackle climate change are extremely weak.''

Australia, along with the United States, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and its targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, widely blamed for global warming.

The head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer, said Bush's statement was ``very encouraging.''

``He did not talk in his State of the Union address about international cooperation on climate change. But at the same time, he did put his remarks in the context of the need for global response,'' de Boer told reporters in Tokyo.