Is Bush's proposal a joke or not?

From Carpetbagger Report:

First, the good news. The president’s comments yesterday were at least a mild shift in rhetorical direction. He believes there should be “goals” for reducing emissions. Believe it or not, this represented a change in administration policy, which has a) questioned whether pollutants were responsible for climate change; and b) been willing to allow emissions to grow, so long as they did not exceed the rate of economic growth..
It’s probably the soft bigotry of low expectations, but this was at least mildly heartening.

Then, of course, there’s the bad news: his proposal is a joke.

“Will the new framework consist of binding commitments or voluntary commitments?” asked CBS News’s Jim Axelrod.

“In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal,” [Jim Connaughton, the president’s adviser on the environment] answered.

Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

“I’m confused,” Axelrod said. “Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?”

“The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal,” the Bush aide repeated.

Axelrod had his answer. “Voluntary,” he concluded.

“Well,” said Connaughton, “I want to be careful about the word ‘voluntary.’”