Political tea-leaf readers are still a-twitter over the fact that Dubya mentioned climate change in Tuesday's State of the Union speech.

From the Washington Post story:

... It was the first time in Bush's six years in office that he mentioned the issue in a State of the Union. And he did it while presenting a high-profile plan to cut gasoline consumption -- and with it, greenhouse gases. "Every word is crafted in that speech and every word has meaning behind it," said Christine Todd Whitman, Bush's former Environmental Protection Agency administrator. "So the fact that he mentioned climate change in that context, that was a step forward, that was a change."

Leaders in Europe and Asia took notice as well, hailing what they saw as a turning point while renewing pressure on Bush to accompany words with more meaningful action. Environmentalists were skeptical but said Bush may be starting to respond to the growing political momentum for grappling with climate change.

"They may see some handwriting on the wall," said David Doniger, climate center policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "They don't want to look like deniers right now. They've got enough problems." But he said Bush's proposal could be "a Trojan horse" that looks more important than it really is and, in its details, actually could undermine its own environmental benefits.

Bush's plan calls for reducing projected gasoline consumption in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years by mandating a dramatic expansion in the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and raising fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. According to the White House, that would cut annual emissions from cars and light trucks by 10 percent, or 175 million metric tons, equal to taking 26 million cars off the road.

Environmentalists noted that the 20-percent reduction target applies to how much gas is forecast to be used in 2017, not how much is used today. Because of an expected increase in consumption over the next decade, such a cut then actually might only slow the growth of gas use. Moreover, alternative fuels would include liquid made from coal, which emits its own toxic gases. And Bush's plan does not address the source of two-thirds of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and manufacturers.

The Bush plan fell far short of the mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions envisioned by the 1997 Kyoto accord, which Bush renounced in 2001. Days before the State of the Union, there was speculation he might embrace emission caps after James L. Connaughton, head of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality, agreed with such an idea "in concept." But White House spokesman Tony Snow slapped down the idea, and the speech made no mention of it.

"To be perfectly frank, I thought it was an appalling disappointment for everyone, whether you're on the right or the left," said Samuel Thernstrom, a former Bush environmental aide now at the American Enterprise Institute. "We had all been led to expect . . . that we would hear a very substantial initiative from the president." Instead, he said, Bush's plan is "essentially trivial, it's marginal."

Agreed.