It started the previous Friday, when President Obama paid a visit to MIT and gave a speech on clean energy and climate change. Without going into policy details, Obama emphasized the innovation needed to respond to the climate challenge (which was very appropriate to the location) and reminded how such innovation is part of what helped shape the United States and how it can place the US back in a leadership position. He also attacked those who appose any attempts to move towards a low carbon economy, saying that “There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs.”

As if to prove that last point about creating new jobs, Vice President Biden went to Delaware on Tuesday to announce the reopening of a former General Motors factory by Fisker Automotive. Only now the factory will produce plug-in hybrid vehicles. Like other members of the administration, the vice president noted the importance of such projects to the American economy as a whole - “we’re on our way to helping America’s auto industry reclaim its top position in the global market.”

That very same day, Obama was in Florida where he announced an investment of $3.4 billion of Recovery Act funds in projects aimed to start the transition to a smart energy grid. Out of the three this is by far the biggest development – not only is it the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, it is also a huge push towards making America more energy efficient and more reliant on alternative energy. And of course, another opportunity for new jobs. This is a very important point when garnering support for climate action within the US, alongside direct economic benefits to the public, which is why Obama once more emphasized that “Such an investment won’t just create new pathways for energy — it’s expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs all across America… It’s expected to save consumers more than $20 billion over the next decade on their utility bills.”

These are just the most public and high-level of the administration’s involvements this past week in supporting a clean energy future. There were also the testimonies of several cabinet members and the head of the EPA in front of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee (which held three days of hearings on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill – the bill’s markup is expected to start today, assuming the Republican boycott of the meeting won’t prevent it from happening) and Energy Secretary Chu published a piece about weatherisation and energy efficiency in the Huffington Post.

It seems then, that now that the climate bill is being discussed in the Senate, the administration is publicly showing its support for climate action, something that was sorely lacking during discussions in the House (though behind the scene the White House did apply pressure on Democrats to support the bill). And though the main target is domestic, this is probably also suppose to serve as a demonstration of the administration’s commitment in the international arena in the run up to Copenhagen.

For those not acquainted with the Bush Administration’s latest pastime I should probably introduce the concept of the ‘midnight ruling’.  Late in a presidency, an administration will often issue rulings that are unpopular but uphold the President’s worldview.  President Bush’s recent midnight rulings have predominantly been concerned with environmental deregulation.  The latest of these concerns the carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants.

As I reported earlier, a decision to disregard a Utah coal power plant’s carbon emissions when considering its environmental impact was overturned last Novermber.  However, on Thursday Stephen L. Johnson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), went on the record to reject November’s overturning, “the current concerns over global climate change should not drive [the] EPA into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls.”

California Senator Boxer soon issued a statement responding,

This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade administrator…  Mr. Johnson’s latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions.

Boxer also wrote a letter (available here) to the Attorney General asking him to “intervene immediately” with Johnson’s “blatantly illegal memo.” Senator James Inhofe, who frequently clashes with Boxer, responded with a statement siding with the EPA.

So what does all of this mean?  Well, first that the regulation of CO2 (or lack of) has been one of the defining features of the President Bush’s time in office, and that he is keen to ensure that greenhouse gases are not controlled during his presidency. Obama has pledged to use his “executive authority without waiting for congressional action” to reverse Bush’s midnight rulings. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) issued a statement saying,

The ultimate consolation, however, is that today’s EPA offense is so ham-handed, so divorced from the law, that it can and should be reversed by the Obama administration with the stroke of a pen.

If the Attorney General does not intervene (which is, in my opinion, likely) then there will be a number of coal-fired power stations that progress far enough down ‘the pipeline’ that Obama will not be able to stop their being built when he takes office on January 20th.  The Justice Department said that it would review Boxer’s letter and respond appropriately, to which Joe Romm of Climate Progress replied, ““Appropriately”? This is the Department that signed off on torture. What the heck is a few coal plants to them?”

Obama’s green team (L-R): Carol Browner, Lisa Jackson, Nancy Sutley, and Steve Chu, with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Yesterday, Obama announced his pick for Secretary of Energy.  He chose a Nobel laureate who is a keen supporter of alternative energy, and who has said that people saying that they are uncertain whether climate change is being caused by humans is “reminiscent of the dialogue in the 1950s and ’60s on tobacco.”

No, it was not Al Gore!

Obama picked the physicist and director of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Stephen Chu - a decision that has won praise from scientists across the board.  “His appointment should signal to all that my administration will value science,” the President-elect said in a press conference yesterday. “We will make decisions based on facts.”

“Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama’s bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment,”

commented Andrew Leonard of Salon.com.

Alongside Chu, Obama chose Carol Browner as his “Climate Tzarina” who will coordinate between the different government agencies that deal with energy policy.  He also picked chemical engineer and former environmental policy official Lisa Jackson to head the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates air quality. Nancy Sutley, a Californian environmental officer, becomes head of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality.

Gene Karpinski, the head of the League of Conservation Voters, sums up the response from environmentalists, calling Obama’s choices “a green dream team“.

Obama has frequently said that tackling climate change and creating energy independence were high on his list of priorities, and these announcements reinforce Obama’s claim that he will take significant action to on these issues early in his presidency.