I must admit, my expectations for our President's two-day summit on global warming were pretty low, and news coverage of the event does nothing to boost my optimism that the U.S. is going to do anything but stonewall substantive regulatory policies that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Here's a sample of the weekend's headlines:

The Washington Post (editorial): Mr. Bush gets Warmer. But the President still resists mandatory limits on global carbon emissions.

The New York Times (editorial): Still out in the cold.

The Los Angeles Times: Bush shifts approach on climate. The President urges the reduction of greenhouse gases to slow global warming, but calls for nations to meet goals voluntarily.

The Daily Telegraph: Bush resists climate change controls.

BBC News: Bush seeks flexible CO2 targets.

The Independent: Bush's voluntary targets for emissions fail to win support.

Indeed, the headlines all say the same thing. The many stories, however, are worth scanning — there are a number of spot-on one-liners you shouldn't miss. Like these from Edward J. Markey, chairman of the House committee on global warming:

The president says his goals are aspirational, but his goals are really procrastinational.

The U.N. is saying the planet is urgently sick, and the Bush administration is saying, 'Take two aspirin and call me when I leave office.'

Or this, from German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel:

This here was a great step for the Americans and a small step for mankind. In substance, we are still far apart.

And this, from John Ashton the UK's special advisor on climate change:

A voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse gases is hardly likely to be more effective than voluntary speed limits on the roads.

If only the situation weren't so serious, I could actually laugh. As it is, I can barely summon a wry smile.

Carbon Neutral Journal's news is brought to you by High Country Linen Service.

Popularity: 14%