Wednesday was a big day for President Bush. Not only did he welcome the Pope to the United States, but he also delivered a rare speech on climate change. We expected to be underwhelmed --which explains the drinking game that we created -- and in the end, the speech essentially lived up to our low expectations.

But there is still lots to discuss about Bush's remarks, and so on Thursday evening, three of EnviroWonk's writers met online for the first official chat in the short history of this blog. We hope it will be the first of many. Here's what transpired:

Dave: What surprised you guys most about yesterday’s speech?

Rob: you mean beyond how poorly it was written?

Dave: Well, they can't make W sound too smart ... people wouldn't believe it.

Samantha: I was surprised with the way we've been hemorrhaging jobs he didn't do more, or anything, to stress the job creation aspect

Rob: I was a bit surprised that he took such an obvious shot at his environmental agencies when he said "Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges. Such decisions should be opened -- debated openly; such decisions should be made by the elected representatives of the people they affect. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution."

Samantha: Seriously, when has his administration given us any of that?

Rob: The open process the president advocated for smacks of irony--it's hard to forget the closed-door energy policy planning sessions Vice President Cheney held at the beginning of their administration.

Rob: I mean, if EPA came up with something good, Bush and the WH gang would just steamroll it.

Dave: Kind of like the ozone rules thing last month, when Bush & Co interfered with the EPA's decision-making process and ordered that the standards be loosened.

Samantha: Didn't EPA say this week that they won't "have time" to make any CO2 guidances or something?

Dave: They've had about a year since the Supreme Court ruling ... how much time do they need?

Samantha: until about Jan 19, 2009 I suppose. Clinton pushed through environmental restoration projects at his 11th Hour, I guess W is looking to do the opposite.

Rob: Well, and the Bush administration undid a bunch of rules the Clinton folks had completed, but never published. I honestly haven't heard much reaction from anyone about the speech--not in any serious context, that is.

Dave: What, you mean the drinking game wasn't serious?? I'm guessing the speech isn't going to go over very well in Paris, where all the major carbon polluting countries are meeting. We'll see some reaction there. (Editor's note: we did.)

Samantha: I don't think anyone takes anything seriously at this point.

Rob: I'm still wondering how or where he found religion. It's not like the president gains anything by making this speech. Neither side of the aisle is happy. I can't imagine anyone in his cabinet or staff hounding him to do it. The only possible winner here seems to be industry, and this is a pretty inconvenient way to give them a favor.

Rob: I loved Boxer's quote about the best thing Bush could do for the environment was to recycle the paper he printed his speech out on.

Dave: Nice. Any idea why the administration chose 2025 as their date to stop increasing emissions? Just because it's as far off as possible? Considering that the crux of last year's IPCC Report was that GHG emissions need to begin dropping by 2015 to avoid some drastic problems, this seems like an odd deadline, even for this administration.

Rob: Well, it's actually not that far off when you consider how long it takes to change things in industries. However, that's only when emissions are to stop growing--they can grow like gang busters until then. And I'm sure there will be exemptions/exceptions for admissions...I mean emissions.

Dave: Exactly ... so like the Iraq war, this is just another example of letting his successor deal with his mess?

Samantha: That's one benefit of rising energy costs and stagnant growth. We're bound to reduce our emissions growth again this year.

Rob: Well, and that rhetoric remains about needing more and more energy--not a peep about conservation. Plus, we need to develop all that technology, but in a market-based way that everyone can be a part of--no favorites!

Dave: Bush equates conservation with sacrifice, which just doesn't go over very well in the administration.

Rob: Conservation's been the third rail of American politics for a long time. We feel a great sense of entitlement as a nation to spend, use and consume as much as we please.

Samantha: But there has been efficiency improvement standards that have come out during his tenure, for appliances and such.

* * *

Samantha: In this month's National Geographic they devoted the issue to China. They have this graph showing their increase in oil consumption in just a decade -- it's scary.

Rob: India too--millions more people can afford cars now in those countries...fuel's gotta come from somewhere.

Samantha: have you seen the Sharpton/Robertson climate change commercials?

Dave: No, have you?

Rob: that sounds like a great SNL skit...

Samantha: I thought it was when I first saw it! It's one of the Alliance for Climate protection $300 million campaign commercials. I wonder how much of the budget went to getting them to sit next to each other?

Dave: Yeah, I remember laughing when I wrote the post about the campaign a few weeks ago. All I keep seeing on television out here is the D-Day commercial that William Macy narrates.

Samantha: I haven't seen that one. I thought the Sharpton one was good though, probably effective, although do people really care what those two think?

Rob: some people do...same with Newt Gingrich & his new book.

Dave: Well, I think it will be effective -- and Newt Gingrich is going to be in one of those ads as well with Pelosi.

Rob: And it's all symbolism--if these two guys who probably don't like each other sit down together, it's got to be something important.

Dave: Back to the China-India conundrum, I thought Andy Revkin made a great point in his NYT Dot Earth blog about this part of the speech: “We recognize that different nations will design different strategies, with goals and policies that reflect their unique energy resources and economic circumstances. But we can only make progress if their plans will make a real difference as well.” [AR: Once again, the old Alphonse and Gaston comic routine surfaces: “You first, Sir.” I’m not sure how that stalemate breaks.]

Samantha: That sort of fits in to the irony of what he said earlier in the speech, "The Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of this agreement, however, would have been to limit our economic growth and to shift American jobs to other countries — while allowing major developing nations to increase their emissions."

Samantha: Cause that worked out so well

Rob: Well, that's been a tenet of this administration's climate policy since 2001. This speech at least shows that we're willing to take action and not just cheerlead.

Dave: I guess it all goes back to the question that the reporter asked Jim Connaughton (chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality) yesterday ... since Bush is a lame duck, why should the rest of the world care at the moment ... there's bound to be a change of course in 7 months.

Samantha: Reuters quoted a source from the Paris meeting saying the same thing.

Rob: well, it's pretty clear that this White House does whatever it wants without regard for how other people will react or evaluate, especially on environmental policy.

Dave: So where does that leave Obama or McCain or Clinton when they take office? And what affect, if any, will the speech have on the race?

Samantha: Bush's speech? Nothing

Rob: and the president made absolutely no friends in his party with the speech...the Washington Times laid into him today over it and made it seem like he's abandoned his conservative values all at once.

Samantha: did they even mention the speech it in the debate last night?

Rob: they were too busy deflecting Charles Gibson's ridiculous hearsay questions.

Dave: Yeah, I don't think so ... too busy talking about unimportant things like Obama's church and out-of-context quotes.

Samantha: Right, the stuff that matters. Back to the speech, remember when Republicans used to adhere to their party's conservative platform? Like Teddy Roosevelt?

Rob: The speech itself doesn't matter, but I feel like it opens the debate about how to best work on climate change almost from scratch...like lots of people haven't been working on this stuff for decades. It's funny--McCain mentions that TR is one of his heroes all the time, particularly for his conservation ethic, though I'm not sure he uses that exact phrase.

Dave: Rob, what do you mean by "almost from scratch?"

Rob: well, now all the free market solutions that won't really get any results will be listened to by the White House and supported by Republicans in Congress because we're now looking for any solution.

Samantha: Do you think that the fact that the President finally made a speech about Climate Change and there is some press over it is at least productive, no such thing as bad press and all?

Dave: It was certainly nice to see climate change dominate a news cycle, at least until the debate debacle last night.

Rob: And except for the Pope's visit.

Dave: Oh yeah, that too … Again, the timing of all this in the broad sense is so weird because it's so late in Bush's tenure.

Samantha: You know, you'd think an issue that affects every single congressional district in one way or another would have more bipartisan support.

Rob: I honestly see the speech as another would-be hand out to industry. I feel like the president was saying, "go ahead, pollute now and start thinking about cleaning up your act in 15 years on someone else's watch" That, and technology will save the day!

Samantha: I think most big businesses have already taken steps to reduce their emissions though. The EPA has some programs that help them do that for free, like Climate Leaders.

Dave: Yeah, and I don't think industry is as dumb as some of the politicians ... look at the McKinsey Report post we did this earlier this week. Most CEOs believe it's an issue, and about 40 percent are running their businesses accordingly ... that’s a good start.

Samantha: Businesses are more proactive because they can't operate with a $9 trillion deficit like the government.

Rob: No, I get that stuff...and good for those folks that are getting it right. But I feel like the government has still yet to get all its ducks in a row in terms of regulating the biggest polluters.

Dave: Right, like the electric utilities.

Rob: It's a tight rope to walk for sure. And the voluntary programs that work are great, but not all of them do. There was a report about Performance Track--a voluntary EPA program--but the agency's AIG that found that only one or two of several dozen companies surveyed had met their environmental pledges.

Samantha: Well that's about what the EU is batting, 2 nations projected to meet their Kyoto targets.

Rob: exactly...and that's what the US always points to as a reason for it not working.