California leads.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Critics of California's historic new plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions are right on one count: The federal government, not individual states, should be leading the fight to slow global warming.

But the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have refused to put in place a nationwide program of mandatory controls. If they won't act, then individual states, including Oregon, should follow California's lead in filling the leadership void.

California is better positioned than most states to make a difference on its own. It has the world's seventh-largest economy and 12th largest greenhouse-gas emissions. It's also bigger, both in terms of geography and population, than many of the countries that have signed on to international climate-change treaties.

California also has more to lose than most states if the heating of the climate continues unabated. Scientists warn that the Golden State faces a bleak future of water shortages, intense wildfires, coastal flooding and diminished air quality.

More than any of its counterparts, California also has become a trendsetter in the growing states-based movement to curb greenhouse emissions. Ten other states, including Oregon, have followed California's 2004 lead in requiring stricter tailpipe emission standards for vehicles. More than 20 states have copied its requirement that utilities eventually generate a percentage of their power from renewable sources.

Under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agreement with legislative leaders, utilities, oil refineries and other companies must cut 25 percent of emissions that contribute to global warming over the next 14 years, eliminating an estimated 174 million metric tons of greenhouse gases.

The agreement required compromise between the Republican governor and the Democratic-controlled state assembly. Schwarzenegger insisted on provisions that will allow the creation of a market-based program for trading emissions credits. He also demanded a "safety valve" in the bill that would extend the deadline for reducing emissions in the event of a natural disaster such as an earthquake or another regional power shortage.

While some environmentalists opposed those concessions, they are reasonable modifications that should actually enhance the bill's effectiveness. It's important to set firm mandates, but it's equally important to give industries measured flexibility in meeting the new requirements.

Some California business groups opposed the caps and warn that they will drive up the cost of electricity and force employers to flee to other states. But they should listen to their visionary counterparts who rightly argue that putting firm limits on greenhouse gases will spur technological innovation - and eventually the creation of thousands of new jobs and new industries.

No one should deceive themselves into thinking California can significantly slow the rate of climate change on its own. Meaningful progress on global warming cannot occur without full engagement by the United States, the world's largest national economy, consumer of energy and producer of greenhouse gas emissions.

But California can create a model for other states - and entire nation - to emulate.