Barack Obama is now President-elect. Many “green” folk are ecstatic about having a President who cares about the environment. I’m always a little cynical about the promises of any politician, but I am trying to remain hopeful. There is already talk of environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. becoming the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, Obama inherits a crippled economy and wars abroad. Will the environment be put on the back burner as more “pressing issues” are addressed first?

One look at Obama’s voting record shows a man who is passionate abut a healthy, sustainable environment.

He was a cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 80% in the year 2050. Senator Obama also made the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as one of his top priorities. Obama introduced the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, which would require all non-home-based child care facilities, to be lead-safe within five years. Obama was also concerned about the mercury in our fish. He introduced two bills: the Mercury Market Minimization Act and the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act . These bills would reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes and rivers.

President Obama will clearly be a friend to the environment. That does not mean he will be ready to make the hard choices necessary for real “change.”

On Obama’s Senate website, the following is written:

“As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 109th Congress, Senator Obama worked to ensure our nation’s environmental laws and policies balance America’s needs for a healthy, sustainable environment with economic growth.”

In a bad economy, there will be pressure on any administration to “balance… with economic growth.” What does that mean? How much balance will there be? Despite a pro-environment President, the debate will surely go on.