In announcing greenhouse gas emission targets on Wednesday, President Bush got it right and he got it wrong.

He was right when he said it would be cumbersome for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate such emissions under the Clean Air Act. Plus, it would be just plain bad for business. That law was passed in a different time for different purposes. Because of federal inaction on climate change, activists and some state and local governments have pressed the EPA to either constrain greenhouse gas emissions across the board or to provide waivers to allow for local actions. Washington is among many states along the West Coast and in the Northeast that want the feds’ permission to enforce clean-car laws, which would require auto manufacturers to provide cleaner-burning versions in those states.

The EPA has refused the necessary waivers, and the states have filed lawsuits. The EPA’s rationale is that this is a federal matter, and that’s true. But there has been no federal action. So round and round we go. We understand the motivation of the states, but it would be best to holster the lawyers and ride out the last months of this administration and begin again.

Where the president got it wrong was in setting greenhouse gas targets that render his administration irrelevant. The overall goal of stopping the increase in emissions by 2025 is out of step with scientific recommendations and other large industrial nations. Taking a cue from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most nations have set reduction targets based on emission levels in 1990. That’s in stark contrast to Bush’s call to “rapidly slow the growth.”

The administration’s advocacy of voluntary remedies that won’t harm the economy is also unrealistic. That’s like agreeing to surgery as long as there is no pain afterward.

The U.S. Senate is debating a bill that would impose a cap-and-trade regime on power companies, but that addresses only 40 percent of emissions. Plus, such a system has failed to achieve meaningful reductions in Europe thus far.

Another solution is a carbon tax, which would force everyone to face the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. Such a levy would build predictability into markets. It would provide incentives for energy conservation and innovation. It would reward power production from nuclear, wind and solar sources while discouraging oil, coal and ethanol, which leave a large carbon footprint.

The United States has begun only recently to consider the impacts of climate change. Now that the administration has made its move, the best course is to engage the debate while waiting for new leadership.