Bush gives a speech.

So the newspapers and TV are all going on about GWB uttering a few green platitudes, nobody seems to be looking at the rest of the speech. Read it for yourself on the Whitehouse site. Let's start with the fact he's addressing the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, what is that? According to their site they're

Americas voice for security, prosperity, & humanitarian values [& the correct use of apostrophes]

So is that America's security, America's prosperity & America's humanitarian values? Nope they look to increase the International Affairs Budget

These programs build markets for U.S. exports, provide for U.S. embassy personnel and security, and promote good governance practices that strengthen democracies. They also facilitate the formation of international coalitions, fund essential nonproliferation and anti-terrorism efforts, respond to global challenges such as hunger and illiteracy, and help people build a future of hope and opportunity.

So all good stuff, but why "Global Leadership"? I'll let George answer that

"It's rallying businesses and non-governmental organizations and faith-based and community and civic organizations across our country to advance a noble cause, ensuring that the United States leads the world in spreading hope and opportunity."

I'll play nice and assume the "noble cause" is spreading hope and opportunity and not that it should be the United States leading the world in doing so.

"When Americans see suffering and know that our country can help stop it, they expect our government to respond."

<cough>New Orleans, Bosnia.

"When America helps lift societies out of poverty we create new markets for goods and services, and new jobs for American workers. Prosperity abroad can be translated to jobs here at home. It's in our interest that we help improve the economies of nations around the world."

Yeah the thought that these societies might produce their own goods and services that they could sell to the US doesn't seem to get a mention. No wait

"Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires opening new opportunities for trade. Trade is the best way to help poor countries develop their economies and improve the lives of their people"

Uh-huh so encouraging them to produce goods to support their own populace first, to build-up their economies to a point where they can trade their surplus and use that money to feed back into the country - that's not the way to do it? Nope

"free trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty"

Ignore the fact that the Western world already has everything in place for trading, ignore the fact that they subsidise the hell out of everything to keep it cheap and not allow developing nations to do the same - free trade is the answer to the world's problems. Get these countries to grow high-value crops to sell to the West then use that money to buy the West's surplus of food that the developing country isn't growing themselves - money goes in, money comes back out.

"So the administration, my administration worked with G8 nations to ease the debt burden. We're not the first administration to figure this out. My predecessor did the same thing, because it's the right policy for the United States of America."

Was that an indirect compliment to Clinton?

"Since I took office, we have more than doubled U.S. development spending across the world -- from about $10 billion in 2000, to $23 billion in 2006"

Uh-huh subtract the contracts to Haliburton et al for Iraq and then give me a figure.

"The first four years of my administration, we doubled our assistance to Africa."

Yep from $1 to $2. Okay I jest, but no figures are mentioned.

President Bush mentions three goals - promoting democracy, promoting education (particularly for girls), and fighting disease. All good goals, no doubt they're pushing Saudi Arabia really hard on the first two and encouraging the big pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices for the latter.

"At the G8 summit, I'm going to urge our partners to join us in this unprecedented effort to fight these dreaded diseases. America is proud to take the lead. We expect others to join us, as well."

Excuse me? Taking the lead; join you? No don't think about that on to the green bits. You see in order to build up these free-trade economies it's going to take energy and so far that production of energy has been deemed to be um a bit messy.

"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol [that we didn't ratify] expires in 2012 [long after I've left office]."

Perhaps I spoke to soon

"By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases."

Oh wait "long-term" that's still 'after I've left office'. As a sop the midterm goals will reflect each countries own mix of energy sources and future needs. So a country that burns a lot of coal and needs a lot of energy will um probably still exactly the same amount of coal, but will be a lower proportion of their overall energy use. Technology to the rescue.

"The world is on the verge of great breakthroughs that will help us become better stewards of the environment. Over the past six years, my administration has spent, along with the Congress, more than $12 billion in research on clean energy technology."

Wow that's nice, while you're at it can you give me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers too? Just because a lot of money has been spent doesn't mean you're getting any results.

"Last week, the Department of Energy announced that in 2006, our carbon emissions decreased by 1.3 percent while our economy grew by 3.3 percent."

Perfectly correct and quotable if you've read only the second page of the EIA document check page 8, milder winter, cooler summer = less A/C. Page 9 notes the switch to using natural gas over petroleum for energy generation. Also that 3.3% increase in the GDP is only true if you're chaining the GDP to 2000 dollars (which isn't mentioned), if you use the current dollar value the increase is 0.003%.

That's the percentage differences between each year's carbon emissions and between each year's GDP pegged to the current dollar. Not that bad a match, though even I'll admit that's a better GDP increase then I'd expect from the trend.

Okay enough stats

"If you are truly committed to helping the environment, nations need to get rid of their tariffs, need to get rid of those barriers that prevent new technologies from coming into their countries."

or should that be 'taking over their countries'. Just what tariffs are in place that prevent countries from using new technology? Nope don't give any concrete examples just assume they exist.

"We'll help the world's poorest nations reduce emissions by giving them government-developed technologies at low cost, or in some case, no cost at all."

No sarcy comments here, that's a fine sentiment and I'll stop with that note.