Late in the game? That sounds a lot like canned Bush bashing. Too many people confuse Bush's refusal to go along with Kyoto early in his first Administration as a two term assault on the environment. During his tenure he has enacted some things the environmental wakos should have liked but didn't just because it was Bush that did it. THEY consistently ignored the fact that he signed legislation and issued executive orders to help the environment and instead labeled him an enemy of the environment or complained that anything he did was not enough. He consistently has said he wants to do right by the environment but he will not sacrifice security and the economy. So when he dumped rules on CO2 emissions the Bush haters went to town on him. It hasn't been enough that he signed some legislation, the Bush haters advertise that he broke his campaign promises so that Halilbuton could pay him and Cheney a fortune and blah blah blah [pick your conspiracy]...

To reinforce my argument that it's Bush hating I point to embryonic tissue research flap. When Bush went along with federal funding for embryonic tissue research the Bush haters all screamed in unison that 1) researchers would be put in prison, 2) Bush outlawed stem cell research, 3) there was no other way for research to proceed with out unlimited access to embryo stem cells. It was not enough that he pumped millions of dollars into embryonic stem cell research - they took the limitations on the funding and reinterpreted that for their own agendas. Every claim they made was an intentionally fabricated lie and if you insist I will dig up the stuff to show that too. I just figure some things are so well known by anybody who at least watches the evening news that dragging it out is redundant. But if you insist, I will.
In brief, he's not come late to change his mind on the environment. He's been consistent.

The oxygen I breathe supposedly comes from work done by countless species (more than exist today) over the course of 2 billion+ years - not the work of one species acting over one hundred years or so.

The amount of CO2 change the scientists are talking about (things like a change of CO2 component of less than 380 ppm to 400ppm -again, sources if you want them) is nothing compared to the changes in the atmosphere hypothesized for it's prior evolution.

There's more significant, real local damage humans do to the environment to be concerned with than CO2. Oceanic over-fishing and fishing practices that damage ecosystems for instance are for more imapcting than human carbon emissions.

I'm really glad to know that you too would rather not vote for Bush for President in 2008. Many Democrats are campaigning with the same mantra.