May 31 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush unveiled a long-term strategy on climate change on Thursday, with plans to gather the countries that emit the most greenhouse gases and set a global emissions goal.

The following are reactions from some analysts to the plans.

PROFESSOR ROB STAVINS, DIRECTOR AT HARVARD ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS PROGRAMME

"I think there's good and bad news. The good news is it's the first time the Bush Administration has indicated any interest in global discussion on a second commitment beyond 2012 (when the Kyoto Protocol obligations expire).

"The bad news is the White House has rejected cap and trade internationally. I believe it ought at least to be on the table."

ANNIE PETSONK, INTERNATIONAL COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, WASHINGTON

"It appears the President may be rejecting the fundamental objective of the U.N. Framework Convention, namely to stabilise the atmosphere at a level that will avert dangerous climate change. If he is rejecting that, that is very serious.

"If he's not willing to consider targets for cutting emissions in the framework of averting dangerous climate change ... then the question arises what climate does the president want?

"He's rejected the proposal that (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel and the other G8 countries have put on the table, a proposal entirely consistent with stabilizing the climate. Why does he feel the need for a new forum with a whole new set of frameworks for targets?

"He's offered no indication of how much if any emissions reductions you could get by cutting tariff barriers. It's not a sollution.

"Bush first opposed cap and trade saying it costs too much, But Europe is doing it, Europe is growing its economy, and Europe is moving ahead with low carbon technologies."

CLIMATE EXPERT CHARLIE KRONICK AT GREENPEACE

"The only way you can get a grip on carbon emissions is to cap and trade them globally. Bush has rejected that, so there are fundamental contradictions in these declarations.

"This is bypassing the G8 in June and the UNFCCC meeting in December and putting all the focus on the Asia-Pacific grouping they came up with after (the) Gleneagles (G8 summit in 2005).

"This is utterly nonsensical. There is a con at the heart of the way that the U.S. is approaching this. Unless they are willing to participate in the global efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the rest of the world is going to have to go on and make a framework which the U.S. can join later."

KIT VAUGHAN, CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISER AT WWF

"The rhetoric clearly shows that if you are doing this just before the G8 meeting (from June 6-8) you really are trying to scupper the G8.

"Generally we would be quite sceptical about whether this is looking for a solution to climate change or whether it is trying to regain ground and maintain its own political and economic interests.

"This is trying to leapfrog next week's summit and the Bali meeting (in December) by aiming at the end of 2008. We don't have time for this. There are lives being lost. It is morally unacceptable."

SEB WALHAIN, HEAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS AT BELGIAN-DUTCH BANK, FORTIS

"That's very good isn't it? Bush talking about goals, that's perfect isn't it?"

TONY WHITE, HEAD OF MARKET DEVELOPMENT AT INVESTORS IN CARBON TRADING PROJECTS, CLIMATE CHANGE CAPITAL

"As I understand it, in detail he just wants countries to pledge to do something and then review afterwards. To my mind you need to see mandatory emissions caps in the developed world."

PETER KOSTER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN CLIMATE EXCHANGE, AN EXCHANGE FOR TRADING EUROPEAN CARBON COMMODITIES

"If you look at the Democratic or Republican candidates (for U.S. President) they've all signed up to bills with cap and trade included."

Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino on Thursday rejected a global carbon market, also called cap and trade.

TONY JUNIPER, HEAD OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

"This is a deliberate and carefully crafted attempt to derail any prospect of a climate change agreement (at the G8 summit) in Germany next week.

"He is trying to destroy the prospect of that getting anywhere by announcing his own parallel process with very vaguely expressed objectives.

"The prospects of him getting this to some form of conclusion in 18 months are extremely slim. Basically we should see this as a delaying tactic to keep the climate change issue off his back in terms of any real decisions until he leaves office (in early 2009)."

AlertNet news is provided by