Throughout his candidacy, U.S. President Barack Obama showed that he clearly understood the importance of embracing the environmental movement, bringing issues like climate change and building a clean energy economy to the forefront of the national political discourse.

On the stump, candidate Obama spoke passionately about the importance of growing a green-collar workforce and leading the way in a global transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy and biofuels. Even as the economic crisis deepened in the fall of 2008, President Obama's enthusiasm for these issues strengthened, morphing into one of the most-critical themes of his candidacy.

As President, Obama's environmental themes did not fade into oblivion. Immediately strengthening fuel effiency standards and investing billions of dollars into clean and renewable energy, smart-grid infrastructure and high-speed trains, Obama was challenging the long-standing paradigm that environmental protection and economic well-being were, by definition, incompatible. As the hundred-day honeymoon came to an end and the armchair punditry began their pseudo-analyses, Obama stayed the course, stressing the need to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy and making an unprecedented executive commitment to science.

But not everyone waiting in the green wings of the Democratic coalition is happy with President Obama's environmental performance thus far. In recent weeks, the Obama administration has also come under fire for what appears to be a softening of its position on several environmental fronts ranging from mountaintop-removal mining to the battle over the long-contested Clinton-era roadless rule in the National Forests, to the battle over climate and energy policy.

Some see Obama's shifting environmental priorities akin to Chamberlain's acquiescent backpedaling to Hitler, while others maintain that Obama is the same pragmatic politician that campaigned on the critical environmental issues today, just that he is now constrained by the realities of American incremental politics.

Mountaintop Mining

A recent Obama administration agreement mandates an end to the streamlined permitting process for mountaintop removal coal mining and better coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some say the rules may be helpful, but that they don't go far enough to stop the the process in its tracks.

Willa Mays, Executive Director of Appalachian Voices said that the administration does not take into account that mountains are being blown up today, and "until mountaintop removal coal mining is ended, residents will continue to suffer from high disease rates, floods, and poisoned water supplies directly attributable to this mining practice."

But President (and candidate) Obama has been very careful in his language when referencing coal, often evoking the promise of clean coal or cleaner coal as a necessary part of our future energy mix. Despite their opposition to the burning of coal for electricity, environmental groups nearly unanimously backed Obama, even though his position on coal wasn't as strong as they would hope.

Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel at the law firm Earthjustice, said, "We are disappointed that the people of Appalachia and their community watersheds will continue to be the sacrificial lamb for our nation's dependence on coal."

And even though the Obama administration can’t promise a slowdown in mountaintop-removal mining, environmentalists hold onto the trademark of the Obama machine: hope.

"We hope that at some point soon the Obama administration will actually do something to stop mountaintop removal before more of Appalachia is permanently destroyed," said Mulhern.

Roadless Areas Rule

In terms of the upholding the roadless area rules in public lands, administration officials say they are committed to the cause but have decided to pursue the goal through policymaking rather than in the courts. As part of that effort, the Agriculture Department, which houses the U.S. Forest Service, last month announced what amounts to a one-year moratorium on development in most roadless areas.

While some see Obama's one-year delay as upholding the Bush administration's position on striking-down the roadless area rule, others believe the timeout will make room for reason in establishing a national forest policy.

"The primary concern with this new interim plan, which could be extended for a second year, is that the decision-making is vested in Vilsack instead of in a real review process," writes Joan McCarter of New West Politics. "But given the slowness with which administrative positions are being filled, that might be a blessing."

Climate, Energy, and Beyond

As a House vote on the Waxman-Markey climate bill seems likely before the Fourth of July recess, some environmentalists are frustrated with Obama and his uncritical support of the bill. Obama, who vocally supported the auctioning-off of all pollution permits during his campaign is now believed to sign any climate bill that makes its way to the White House, even if it allocates permits to big polluters.

Some speculate President Obama is deferring to Congress on the climate to save some political capital for another national issue which is coming to a head around the same time: the health care debate. And as hard as it is for the eco-fixated (and under-insured) like myself to understand, health care may have greater political salience than passing climate policy.

"We have set out on a very clear path toward improving our nation's environmental laws and policies so they balance America's need for a strong, sustainable economy and a healthy environment," said Christine Glunz, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "That means taking short- and sometimes longer-term action," added Glunz.

The Obama strategy of giving up a few small hills to take the big mountain has some environmentalists getting a little impatient. But how impatient are they really? Unsubstantiated claims that like the ones made in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times, create the perception that environmentalists are, as a group, miffed at the President. But environmentalists are not a single entity, they are a diverse coalition with broadly varying interests and goals. As would be expected in a pluralist democracy, some are happy with the President's environmental performance, thus far, and some believe he could do a bit more.

Environmentalists (as well as those reporting on them) should keep in mind that good governance requires the ability to effectively manage the intersection of pluralism and pragmatism.

Images via mcmay and Steve Rhodes

Follow Tim Hurst on twitter

Other related features on Celsias:

Mr. Obama: We Need to Come Clean About Economic Crisis

Appalachians (and Everyone) Pay Big for Cheap Energy

Follow us on Twitter: Celsiastweets