And always, it seems, there is California, ready to take the lead until there are more responsible adults in the White House.

California’s cap-and-trade program requires power plants, natural gas utilities, fuel distributors and industries to buy permits to pollute, which decline in quantity over time. The idea is to put a price on emissions and, thus, discourage businesses and individuals from burning fossil fuels and encourage them to switch to cleaner sources of energy. The California program is linked with a cap-and-trade system in Quebec; Ontario will join next year. (A carbon tax is another way to put a price on greenhouse emissions; British Columbia, Finland and Ireland use this approach.)

Cap and trade is not a new idea; Congress and President George H. W. Bush used it successfully to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain. Congress considered a cap-and-trade program to address greenhouse gases; the House approved such a program in 2009, but the Senate did not.

California held its first auction of emission permits in 2012, and the state is well on its way to meeting its goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 with no obvious harm to its economy, which is booming. The state is using some of the money its cap-and-trade system generates to pay for a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, which over time could help significantly reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

While there was broad support for the extension, some environmental groups like the Sierra Club California and a few Democrats opposed the legislative package for what they argued were unnecessary concessions to the oil and gas companies. The legislation is not perfect, but its benefits far outweigh its costs, and the country is better off for having it.