LIKE THE millions of Californians who grew up somewhere else, I sometimes have to pinch myself. The weather is so uniformly sunny and pleasant that we actually look forward to rain. From almost anywhere, the beach is 90 minutes away, and so are the mountains. There are 279 state parks, and almost 30 national parks, monuments and recreation areas. We have world-class museums and theater. It's a laboratory for technology, an incubator for innovative ideas such as clean cars and solar energy.

This is such an amazing state, with such remarkable physical and intellectual resources. We like to think of ourselves as forward-thinking, ahead of the curve. So, at a time when we have the opportunity to lead the nation away from a dependence on hazardous chemicals, why would we squander it?

In 2008, both the Legislature and the governor got it right. The governor launched the Green Chemistry Initiative, a comprehensive program to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in our products and the environment. And the Legislature passed two bills, one to create a Toxics Information Clearinghouse and the other to allow the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to identify chemicals of concern in consumer products, track them, and take action to protect the public.

It looked as if California would be taking a place alongside the European Union and Canada, whose environmental policies are committed to a future of continuous improvement, not satisfied with merely slowing the forces damaging the world's air and water, and environmental and human health.

Today, I am not so certain that we have the courage to follow through with the promise of the Green Chemistry Initiative. I have been following closely the process of writing the regulations that will implement Green Chemistry. The writers gave the public a peek into their thinking last month when they issued their draft straw proposal. It was discouraging.

First of all, they created a program that is "self-implementing." What this means is that the manufacturers who use the chemicals to create their products are in charge of identifying whether their products contain hazardous chemicals and, if they do, to conduct studies to determine whether there are ways to make their product without the dangerous ingredient, and to phase out the bad chemical if they discover there are safer alternatives. Call me cynical, but I simply do not believe there is any incentive for a manufacturer to tamper with the recipe of a successful product.

I understand that the state is in a budget crisis, and that it is unrealistic for a streamlined DTSC to take on this program in a traditional manner. What I propose is that manufacturers pay into a fund that would enable DTSC to hire certified third-party experts to perform the alternatives analyses and determine whether the manufacturers should be required to make a change in their products.

The regulations must require DTSC to oversee the program in a meaningful way. Just because public money is in short supply today, we cannot build a skimpy program. If Green Chemistry is going to take us forward, it would be shortsighted to remove government oversight.

Let's get it right. Forty-nine states are watching.

Palitz is environmental health advocate and staff attorney for Environment California in San Francisco.