Readers of the "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" are probably familiar with the image of the entire kingdom beginning to thaw as the spell of the evil witch is lifted.  Creatures that were frozen begin to come back to life, rivers begin to flow again, the entire realm breaks into spring, and so on. . .  On several occasions I have heard the metaphor invoked to describe what has taken place at government agencies like EPA and Interior since the Obama administration came to power.

Like some cute little critters that had been frozen in silence by the Bush administration's environmental policy, the true environmentalists from within these agencies have been allowed to breathe again, allowed to address environmental issues by honoring the spirit of our environmental laws.  Environmentalists of all stripes, including those in the non-profit sector, science and academia have almost unanimously expressed relief.

As proof of the damage done over the last few years, one need only look to the trend in the D.C. Circuit toward rejecting agency interpretations of environmental laws, citing the tendency of the Bush administration to force twisted regulations that tortured the environmental statutes in favor of industry, primarily energy.  Even the Supreme Court, known best for tossing out progressive Ninth Circuit environmental law decisions, decided to directly confront the Bush EPA with an order to comply with the Clean Air Act.

In stark contrast, in the last two months the Obama administration has reversed course on almost all fronts- pushing for climate change legislation, changing the EPA's position with respect to California's stricter limits, revisiting mercury regulation, funding science and disallowing oil exploration on vast stretches of public land.

Obama has reshaped environmental policy in two important ways.  First, he has taken a philosophical step in the direction of responsibility, calling for an environmental policy that reflects our obligations to future generations and to the world.  The new administration also views environmentalism as an economic opportunity; within minutes of being sworn in, Obama openly rejected the prior philosophy that environmental protection and economic prosperity are at odds.

The second way that Obama has reshaped environmental policy is more troubling.  He has switched the Bush philosophy of "energy versus environment" into "energy and environment," or more simply, "green energy."  The clearest manifestation of this policy is the inclusion of his environmental agenda into the energy prong of his save-America trifecta of "Energy, Education and Healthcare."  The approach is likely to bring the greatest wave of environmental legislation since the 1970's, but it is troubling because it is simply the flip side of the Bush philosophy that energy and environment are inextricably linked.

What's the danger?  For one, if the policy fails or even falls short, the old argument that environment must give way for energy will gain new force.  Because humans are selfish and short-sided, this could at worst cause a backlash that sets environmental protection back decades.

Even under a more optimistic scenario, another risk to the policy is that non-energy environmental issues like species protection and clean water initiatives will fall far behind energy-related issues, such as climate and drilling, on the priority list.  There are already signs of this.  The newly created Energy Czar post, occupied by former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, threatens to take authority and influence away from the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), heretofore entrusted as the chief advisor to the President on environmental issues.  With Obama's environmental planning tied up with his energy policy, it appears likely that Browner will have the first word on climate, so CEQ and other agencies will have to wait in line to push other environmental concerns.

The legal environmental movement that was born in the 1970's has always been thwarted by different forces, not least the energy lobby, but at least it was a unified front.  By merging energy and environment Obama risks obscuring goals in both areas.  Success on the energy front will be seen as success on the environmental front, removing an important impetus to address problems ranging from contaminated waste sites to polluted lakes to depleted fish stocks.

Energy and the environment are interrelated and interdependent- but they are distinct.  Environmental policy has long been a force against the destructive nature of humanity, while energy has been at the heart of our consumptive, destructive capacity.  One feeds on human excess, one suffers from it.  Obama's approach may well prove to take us to a new level of environmental stewardship, but it's a gamble.  Sometimes it's better to let rivals be rivals.