[ASSURAS] The idea of capping and cutting carbon emissions may be the most contentious energy issue in Congress. But for almost a decade now, the European Union has limited its carbon pollution and made companies track and pay for their emissions if they go over the limit. "energyNOW!"'s Tyler Suiters recently caught up with the E.U.'s climate commissioner to talk about that global effort to cut carbon emissions.

[SUITERS] Thalia, that's an effort that, quite frankly, the U.S. isn't helping along very much.

Connie Hedegaard was among the key players at the milestone UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen back in 2009, talks that ended without a binding climate treaty. But let's begin with the nuclear crisis in Japan and what that could mean for European efforts to curb carbon emissions.

[HEDEGAARD] We have 143 nuclear power plants running today in Europe. They're not going to disappear overnight. Then there are some few plans for building new plants. And, of course, that will be more difficult politically, maybe. On the other hand, last year we sort of made legislation for all of Europe when it comes to nuclear security. All the member states will have to have transposed that legislation this year. So it's just to say that, it's not that we were not taking nuclear security seriously before this event. Everybody also realizes how extraordinary the event in Japan is. So, I think there is a general feeling that we should take care not to panic, not to jump to a lot of conclusions. So there will be even tighter security coming out of this. Even more questions will be raised if you want to build a nuclear plant. You will have to sort of stand up and defend it even more. So in that sense, it is a bit more politically difficult.

[SUITERS] What grade would you give President Obama on climate actions for his first two years?

[HEDEGAARD] As a matter of principle, I'm not giving grades to other heads of state. We can see that the Obama administration is trying very hard to sort of play their part and their role in the international climate negotiations. So did also your president at the Copenhagen Summit. And that is good, but we can also see the many challenges to get the overall national policies through in the American Congress.

[SUITERS] If the U.S. role isn't diminishing, is China's role growing significantly in the international negotiations? This is a country that is the world's leading energy consumer and now the world's leading carbon emitter as well.

[HEDEGAARD] That is why, of course, also the pressure must be on China. And I think, from having read the next Chinese five-year plan, they know that. They have 300 million, 400 million Chinese now grown into the middle class. They still have 900 million people to go.

[SUITERS] The numbers are mind-boggling.

[HEDEGAARD] No, but of course, they need growth, and nobody would deny them the right to the kind of growth that we had. But it means a lot to the whole world how they are creating this growth. They have seven industrial priorities in the next five years. More or less all of them will be focused on energy, climate, and environment. Electrical vehicles, how to carbon capture and storage, battery storage technology -- things like that. Things that, both in Europe and the United States, we would normally think, wow, we are the leaders there, but we can see they are coming and they are coming very fast.

[SUITERS] You were in parliament in Denmark at a very young age. You understand the legislative process. Is the United States still relevant in the international climate negotiations in the absence of any climate legislation here at home?

[HEDEGAARD] Yeah. The U.S. is very, very relevant, partly because, still many countries expect leadership from the United States. But partly also because, as long as the United States is not moving more than you are, it makes it easier for others to hide behind the back of the United States. And that is actually partly the case we see now. It's so easy to be some of the other countries. They can always say -- for instance, the emerging economies, "after you." Pointing to the United States, saying, "As a rich country, together with the European Union and others -- Japan, Russia and so on -- you have to sort of do your part. First when you have done that, we will commit further." So, in that sense, the U.S. has a very crucial role to play, both when you play it and when you don't play it.

You know, seen from a European perspective, we always, of course, want to have strong ties with the United States, and we think that this is also about who is going to be the strategic leader of the world in the 21st century. If we agree that this issue is a defining issue, how can we have more green growth? How can we provide the growth for 9 billion people? There will be 9 billion people when my children will be my age. If we have to have that growth, we have to do it in a more intelligent manner. Who will lead that transition? Who will lead that revolution into becoming much more green, much more energy efficient? We would very much, in the European Union, we would very much also like to see progress here in the United States.

[SUITERS] After my conversation with Connie Hedegaard, I discussed her criticisms about the lack of U.S. policy with Senator John Kerry. Last year, he cosponsored a Senate bill to cap then cut U.S. carbon emissions, a bill that died because it never even faced a floor vote. I asked Senator Kerry what his plan's failure means for the U.S. and the country's impact at world climate negotiations.

[KERRY] The U.S. is worse than taking a back seat. The U.S. has wrapped a chain around the axle of the vehicle and it's holding it back. We're a deadweight on the efforts to move forward on climate change, because we simply haven't embraced an energy policy and because we haven't been serious about joining the global community in this effort. We still have people in the United States Senate who deny the existence of climate change, despite the fact that the most recent study, done by people who were doubters, came out and said it's happening. So, we're dealing in a very difficult time, where we have to break out. And what we need, frankly, is Americans, people in the grassroots, people to go to the polls and vote only for those people who really are committed to getting something done.

[SUITERS] Energy policy here in the U.S. or the lack thereof -- how frustrated are you in the wake of never even seeing your bill getting a floor vote last year and seemingly the issue being dropped this year?

[KERRY] I'm deeply frustrated. I'm frustrated for our country because we're losing. We're losing valuable, valuable time. Other countries are racing ahead of us. We're losing jobs. We're losing market share. Not to mention that we're making our air unhealthier, making our national security riskier because we're more dependent on foreign oil. This is reaching a level of real absurdity. And... I'm deeply frustrated by the lack of seriousness within the United States Congress. We need an energy policy. America needs to move, and it needs to move now.

[SUITERS] With Republicans in firm control of the House right now, Thalia, there is no chance of Congress passing a bill to limit carbon emissions anytime soon.

[ASSURAS] And that really rankles Senator Kerry, doesn't it?

[SUITERS] Absolutely. He is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and, historically, this is the committee that has had jurisdiction over international treaties that would include any potential UN climate treaty, but, Thalia, the problem is, that doesn't seem to be on the horizon any time soon either.

[ASSURAS] No time soon. Thanks very much, Tyler.