Going without insurance is described as "going naked" in insurance industry lingo. Going without insurance for the worst hazards in the nuclear power industry is business as usual.

One need not look back very far to see the problem. In March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, triggered by an earthquake followed by a tsunami that overwhelmed all of Japan's safeguards, melted down three reactors, displaced 160,000 people and caused an estimated $250 billion in damages and other still-unfolding economic consequences.

Today, in the United States, we have 104 operating nuclear plants producing electricity. The owners, operators, and government regulators who oversee them say an event like Fukushima will not happen here. And even if it did, they insist, there is enough liability insurance in place to cover the damages. The actual amount of that insurance coverage: just $12.6 billion.

You don't need an advanced degree in calculus or risk analysis to see that something doesn't add up, and to start feeling a bit...naked. But when it comes to nuclear insurance, naked is the fashion designed for the American public.

A catastrophic accident in the US could cost way more than $12.6 billion. A worst-case scenario study in 1997 by the Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a major accident could cost $566 billion in damages and cause 143,000 possible deaths. Another such study, by Sandia National Laboratories in 1982, calculated the possible costs at $314 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that would put both estimates close to the trillion dollar range today. So $12.6 billion wouldn't cover much.

After Fukushima, which was only the second worst such accident behind the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the former Soviet Union, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its staff scrambled to reappraise the adequacy of their own safety regimens for nuclear power plants. And they re-examined the sufficiency of the limited insurance available to indemnify the American people against property damage, loss of life and other economic consequences of nuclear accidents. Then the NRC hastened to publish the "lessons learned" from the Japanese catastrophe to show they were on top of things. Though the previously existing US system had been described as virtually fail-safe, federal regulators found that improvements were possible after all and ordered that they be made. 

But one not so small thing remained unchanged, post-Fukushima: the tightly capped insurance system. Of course, raising the amount of insurance required to operate nuclear plants would be expensive. The nuclear industry, which provides 20 percent of all of the country's electrical power, is not eager to incur additional expenses like higher insurance premiums for more coverage. Oh, but the nuclear power industry doesn't actually pay premiums on most of the insurance coverage that supposedly is available (more about that later.) 

First, a little history. After solving the scientific and technological issues of splitting the atom, the biggest problem the nuclear industry faced in its infancy was obtaining accident insurance coverage. Without insurance, investors were unwilling to provide start-up capital. But the insurance industry was nervous. After all, this was back in the 1950s, and who knew then how safe -- or dangerous -- this new power source might turn out to be? So insurers were refusing to assume unlimited levels of liability.

But President Dwight D. Eisenhower was determined to develop "Atoms for Peace," and he worked with a cooperative Congress to remove all roadblocks. Their solution to the insurance obstacle was a new federal law, the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which simply imposed federally-decreed limits on liability from accidents at non-military nuclear facilities. The law, amended several times since then, allowed the creation of insurance pools to cover accidents. Today the plan has two tiers. The first tier is a $375 million insurance policy for which each nuclear plant must pay premiums ranging between $500,000 and $2 million a year, depending on plant size and other factors. If a plant has an accident and $375 million is not sufficient to cover resulting damages the second tier kicks in and all the other plant operators around the country must chip in up to $111 million each to indemnify victims until the $12.6 billion cap is reached.

By the way, if you live near a nuclear plant, or even many miles away, you cannot buy your own private insurance policy to protect your home against nuclear accidents, thanks to the Price-Anderson law.

The nuclear industry and the insurance industry both understood the hard realities of the risk. In testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 24, 2001, John L. Quattrocchi, then senior vice president for underwriting at the American Nuclear Insurers pool, put it bluntly: "The simple fact is there is always a limit on liability -- that limit equal to the assets of the company at fault." 
     
Meanwhile, corporations that own nuclear plants have devised spin-off schemes, erecting legal firewalls to protect the parent company if their limited-liability subsidiary actually operating the plant goes under as the result of an accident.

Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant suffered a partial meltdown in March, 1979. Victor Gilinsky was the senior sitting member on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when that accident happened. According to Gilinsky, now retired, "There is no insurance for an extreme event."   
 
Now, as scientists warn of climate change, rising sea levels, stronger hurricanes and a host of other environmental threats related to global warming it might not be unreasonable to re-examine protections afforded the public. Small-scale accidents at nuclear plants continue to happen. A big one, like Fukushima or worse, may have a low probability level. But it isn't impossible. 

True, nuclear plants contribute little or no greenhouse gas emissions to the overburdened atmosphere compared to the coal-fired plants that add so much to global warming. But there is another factor to consider when weighing the nuclear option. Originally licensed for 40 years of operational life, most US nuclear plants are approaching or have already exceeded that period. So far, 73 such plants have been given 20-year extensions, and with retrofitting and extensive upgrades, some are expected to function to an age of 80 years.  Lets all keep our fingers crossed.

 

 

   

Miles Benson is a correspondent for Link TV's Earth Focus. He has a distinguished career as a daily print journalist. From 1969 till his retirement in 2005, was a correspondent for the Newhouse Newspaper group, which included 30 daily newspapers. He covered the US Congress for 15 years and then the White House for 16 years, wrote a weekly political column and covered national politics and public policy.

Following in the wake of shale gas and coal-bed methane (CBM) extraction is the spectre of underground coal gasification (UCG). But if we adopt these wholesale we could close off any hope of stepping back from the climate change brink, says UK campaign group Frack Off.

 

The earthquakes caused by the first attempt to frack a shale gas well in the UK, almost two years ago, were a wake up call that has implications far beyond the damage caused to Cuadrilla's well-bore. When your plan for getting gas is fracturing rock two miles under the Lancashire countryside, you know the cheap and easy energy is long gone. 

 

The signs have been there for many years, from oil rigs pushing out into deeper and deeper water to the vast tar sands mining operations in Alberta, getting energy is taking increasing amounts of effort. People have been slow to connect the dots but now with the exploitation of unconventional gas threatening to spread thousands of wells, pipelines and other industrial infrastructure across the country, the issue of this relentless rise in energy extraction effort is finally beginning to get the attention that it deserves.

 

Like yeast growing in a vat, the fundamental question has always been whether industrial society will be poisoned by it's own waste (alcohol in the case of yeast) before it runs out of resources (sugar). While significant attention has been paid to the relentless build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, worrying about running out fossil fuels has been very much a fringe activity. 

 

The answer to this question has now become somewhat clearer, though it is much more nuanced than most people would expect. Rather than destruction by environmental crisis ("climate change") or economic crisis ("peak oil") we face an intricately linked combination of the two ("extreme energy"). This is not to deny the importance of either climate change or peak oil, but they not only have the same cause but are happening in the context of each other, so neither can be viewed in isolation.

 

Unsustainable energy

 

As our society's unsustainable consumption of energy depletes easier to extract resources, it is driving the exploitation of evermore extreme and damaging energy sources. From fracking to the push to build a string of new biomass power stations which will devour the world's remaining forests and the plans for a wave of new, more dangerous, nuclear power stations, energy extraction is becoming much more destructive. 

 

In the past the dominant environmental impact of exploiting fossil fuels was the impact of the carbon emissions associated with burning them but as the effort required for energy extraction has grown, so have the environmental consequences of the extraction processes themselves. The poster child for this effect are the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, but across the globe, from the Arctic Ocean to the rainforests of Borneo, energy extraction is driving increasing environmental destruction.

 

A common propaganda tool is to portray such concerns as a stark choice between economic growth and environmental preservation, but in reality extreme energy is as damaging to people's economic well-being as it is to the environment. 

 

As extraction effort grows, a greater fraction of economic activity must be allocated to the energy sector. In a market economy the mechanism by which this is achieved is, of course, rising energy prices, which will have the effect of diverting resources away from other activities. 

 

In the last decade the fraction of the global economy devoted to energy extraction has almost tripled, to over 10 percent of GDP. If the use of more extreme extraction methods increases then an even greater proportion of the worlds resources must be sacrificed to these efforts. 

 

This path leads to a world where energy extraction dominates the economy, and the majority of the population lives in its shadow. Look at the Niger Delta to see what such a world looks like.

 

The greatest threat

 

In the UK unconventional gas is by far the greatest threat. Despite the North Sea in terminal decline and increasing pressure on imports there is an insidious push to increase our dependence on gas. Fracking is seen as the way to achieve this but even if is feasible, it would require drilling of tens of thousands of wells and the devastation of the huge swathes of countryside. This will result in toxic and radioactive water contamination, air pollution, severe health effects in human and animals and increased greenhouse gas emissions all for a very short term hit of extremely expensive gas. 

 

Following in the wake of shale gas and coal-bed methane (CBM) is the even more dire spectre of underground coal gasification (UCG) which involves partially burning coal underground and bringing the resulting gases to the surface. UCG has an even worse record of environmental contamination and could potentially emit enough carbon to raise global temperatures by up to 10 degrees Celsius.

 

A wholesale adoption of fracking and associated methods would close off perhaps our last chance to step back from the brink. Extreme energy requires a dedication to energy production to the exclusion of all else, which would radically alter the structure of our society. 

 

Increasingly, more expensive energy infrastructure must be built, which will divert huge amounts resources away from worthwhile activities. It will quickly become the case that the largest single consumer of the energy produced will be energy extraction processes themselves. We will end up on a treadmill running faster and faster just to stand still as everything falls apart around us. 

 

The decision we face is between prioritising abstract notions of profit and growth or the real well-being of communities and ecosystems. The two can no longer pretend to coexist.

 

To learn more about the impacts of fracking, visit Link TV's ISSUE: Fracking page, and watch this Earth Focus report about Britain's gas rush, a program supported by Lush.

Jamie Henn from 350.org stated in an interview on Tuesday with OneClimate.net that he believes there are two difference strategies by which one could approach the UNFCCC climate talks in Cancun and other Conferences of the Parties (COPs). He says the first and most prevalent strategy is to try and make small steps of progress each year towards building a larger treaty. The other and more important strategy, in Henn's opinion, is to use the COPs as opportunities to create "outrage" on the lack of progress that are made at these negotiations by key countries who aren't "stepping up to the plate."

Today, on the final day of formal negotiations of COP16, Greenpeace and TckTckTck, along with volunteers from several other NGOs, showed their support for the latter strategy by carrying out an extravagant stunt on the beach outside the Crown Paradise Club resort in Cancun. Well over a hundred people showed up to participate and cover the event, which involved creating a bird's eye image (using the help of renowned human banner aerial artist John Quigley) of climate negotiators being rescued from the sea by a giant inflated life ring. 

The stunt venue was a nice departure from the cold, civilized rooms of the Cancunmesse and Moon Palace, and quite possibly the first time many of the hard working attendees had set foot on the beach during their time in Cancun.

Dozens of barefoot volunteers were given suits and business attire to put on for their roles as negotiators, and then were marched out to sea to start treading water. The remaining participants wearing green and blue shirts represented the civil society and used their bodies to spell out the word "HOPE?" on the sand. Then, the civil society leaped up to drag an enormous orange life ring (15 meters in diameter) into the water where the negotiators were floundering and simulating drowning. Fortunately, no one actually drowned (though their acting was very convincing!), because the civil society came to the rescue and pulled all of the flailing negotiators onto the ring and back to shore.

The symbolism of the event was very clear: Negotiators aren't making sufficient strides towards effectively mitigating green house gases and helping vulnerable communities who are already being impacted by climate change. Today is their last chance at this COP to make crucial compromises and commitments, and the civil society is here to help them do it.

Speaking after the stunt with some of the sandy, dripping wet participants, the tone of reactions was one of hope in these final hours. Local NGOs and folks from all over the world had come to the beach to join together and send a clear message to negotiators who once again hold the fate of the world in their hands. The act was not subtle, or forgiving, but it showed the great responsibility of COP16 participants to come to an agreement, and the urgency to do so. As talks wrap up today, we will find out if this outrage was heard.

 

Click here for more pictures from COP16.

According to Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, here in Cancun, Mexico we are in the land of the ancient Mayan goddess Ixchel, who, along with reason and weaving, is the goddess of creativity. I believe that the latter of these three virtues, creativity, is certainly a key to success at these negotiations and beyond if we hope to solve the global climate crisis. 

One of the most important outcomes from last year’s negotiations in Copenhagen was that developed countries pledged to provide “new and additional resources” to fast track and long-term climate financing in support of mitigation and adaptation, approaching $30 billion by 2012 and $100 billion by 2020. Obviously, it is not easy to raise these large amounts of money, but a new report shows that while challenging, it is feasible to raise $100 billion, if not more, by 2020. 

In his welcoming remarks at a December 8th press briefing about the findings of his high-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated that, “climate change financing is not about charity… but ultimately an investment in a safer, more stable, more prosperous world for us all.” 

The advisory group was tasked with identifing additional sources of funding to meet the goal of $100 billion by 2020, and a creative inventory of financing mechanisms was the result. The group did not look at the delivery of the mechanisms in detail-- that is for the countries to determine-- nor did they suggest what the balance of public vs. private funding might look like. Their intention was not to make policy decisions but rather, “to provide a toolbox for the decision making process,” said panel member Ernesto Cordero Arroyo, Mexican Minister of Finance. 

According to panel co-chair Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister of Norway, the report findings are, “a kind of menu where we as decision makers and governments can choose.” There is not one single solution to generate these funds, rather, it will need to come from a variety of sources, and private funding will need to be combined with traditional and new public funding. 

Instruments in the report include auctioning emission allowance (a not-so-new idea, which could raise $30 billion), C02 taxation for international transport (aviation and shipping industries, coming in at $10 billion), and the redirection of funds allocated for subsidizing fossil fuels (raising a possible $10 billion).

Carbon pricing appears to be an important item on the panel’s menu of financing options. Panel co-chair Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, began by noting that it would be difficult to generate these funds in an environment where the cost of carbon is too low, and Stoltenberg reminded that carbon pricing will not only raise revenue, but also give the right incentives to the developed world to reduce emissions.

While the long list of financial instruments offered by the panel is impressive, also worth noting is that such a varied group was able to come to agreement. Aside from the fact that so few women were involved (not a minor oversight as pointed out by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, during the Q&A), the 21-person panel included members from the developed and developing countries, and the private and public sectors.

This brings me to the second key to success: flexibility. Several comments at the briefing alluded to the challenges that this diverse group faced while coming to agreement on the report’s findings. But while each member may not have been 100% satisfied with every detail, they exercised flexibility and respected the views of other members ultimately coming to an agreement. Those at the press briefing were openly pleased with the final report and proud that such a diverse group had produced it.

Informal hallway conversations with conference attendees today provided a mixed review regarding which countries have been flexible vs. which have not. Many shared the opinion that the U.S., China, and Japan were among the least willing to compromise, and others noted that Bolivia, Chile and India showed willingness to negotiate outside their comfort zone. With the 16th Conference of the Parties formally closing tomorrow evening, time will soon tell what countries have or have not acknowledged creative new ideas and found the flexibility to reach around political obstacles. After all, as the Secretary-General has reminded, “Nature isn’t waiting while we negotiate.”

 

Watch an interview from OneClimate.net with UN Fair Play's Charlie Young on the inequalities of negotiations:

Tuesday, December 7th, in downtown Cancun, thousands of locals, NGOs and community groups took to the streets, mobilizing for climate justice in the wake of the UNFCCC negotiations. People carrying large banners, beating drums and chanting in unison, marched through busy streets filled with curious onlookers for almost two miles to draw attention to various issues surrounding climate change and its impacts. Countless local and state groups from Mexico and other parts of Latin America joined together, including the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade, the Indigenous Group Tepehuano of UNORCA (National Union of Autonomous Regional Peasants Organizations), and the Indigenous and Ecological Federation of Chiapas. Mexican chapters of organizations like Friends of the Earth, 350.org, Oxfam, and Greenpeace were also present and adding to the commotion.

While the nuances of their causes varied, the tone of the people gathering was clear: urgent action on climate change is vital. Perhaps the most vocal of the groups present at the march were the Mayan community members, who were teamed up with the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) and the Organization of Forest Producers' Cooperatives of the Zona Maya (OEPFZM), to express their dissatisfaction with the Mexican government for withholding compensation owed to them for an extreme decade-long drought, which has devastated corn crops, food security, and Mayan livelihoods.

The Mayan community is calling for drastic cuts in greenhouse gases by industrial countries, and immediate assistance for adapting to impacts of climate change, like the drought. Some feel it is possible that come Friday, when the UNFCCC talks come to a close, negotiations will establish a fund that will adequately help vulnerable communities cope with their changing climate. State Secretary Emiliano Ramos, felt fairly optimistic that progress could be made on issues that affect the world's poorest (he gauged his level of optimism at a "5" on a scale of one to ten), but others were not so hopeful. A man representing an indigenous group of UNORCA, had lost all faith in negotiations and just wanted emergency help of some kind for his climate-related hardships.

Victor Menotti, Executive Director of IFG, felt what was needed most from developed countries was real commitments, not just pledges. He expressed hopes that there would be "goodwill and cooperation [in talks] and that governments would come to their senses" but that it would take "a lot of noise on the street to make that happen."

As we marched with the people through the avenues of downtown Cancun under the hot midday sun, the energy of the group seemed endless. Our final destination was the Palacio Municipal where we expected people to disperse, or at least sit down to rest. But upon arriving, there was a stage set up complete with live music and MC, and giant house-sized corn cob structures illustrating (with a touch of humor) the plight of the indigenous Mayan farmer. The crowd was instantly reinvigorated and the mobilization continued on for hours.

With Friday's outcome still hanging in the balance, the fate of the Mayan farming community and many other vulnerable areas around the world that are most heavily affected by decreases in rainfall and other environmental changes, is unknown. Hopefully Tuesday's noise on the street caught the attention of negotiators not far down the road at the Moon Palace conference center.

 

Developing countries are hardest hit and not yet served by funds that should be helping them.  

On the first day of week two of the UNFCCC climate negotiations, things are busy at the Cancunmesse exhibition hall, which is filled with hundreds of booths staffed by NGO, IGO, and national representatives. Among them are antipoverty development organizations such as Oxfam, WEDO, and CARE who are calling for the establishment of a fair global climate fund that will meet the needs and rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities. They, and scores of other attendees at the conference, believe that climate change poses an unprecedented threat to poor people who are already struggling to sustain their livelihoods and maintain food security, and that women and other marginalized groups are most vulnerable.

 

UK Ambassador to Mexico speaks at Funding the Future press conference

Yesterday afternoon at a press briefing titled Funding the Future organized by Oxfam International, six panelists shared their visions and experiences to help set the path to establish a fair global climate fund by week’s end. Top climate negotiators and ministers responsible for actualizing this goal are in Cancun right now and more are flying in this week. Although the first week of talks seems to have shown a fairly positive spirit and willingness to compromise on the part of many countries, a feeling of trepidation is present that the building pressure to make progress regarding emissions cuts and the Kyoto Protocol may result in insufficient time and energy for agreement on the establishment of a fair climate fund. 

So what is this fund and how is it different from what Tim Gore, International Policy Advisor for Oxfam, calls the “spaghetti bowl of different climate financing channels” that currently exists?  Well, as outlined in a letter signed by 215 civil society organizations released today at the press briefing, in order for the fund to be legitimate and effective it must:

 

• Be established under the authority of the UNFCCC, a legitimate forum where all countries are represented. 
• Have equitable representation for developing countries on the board and not be donor country dominated. 
• Ensure consideration is given to gender and multicultural balance on the board.
• Guarantee at least 50 percent of the resources of the fund are channeled to adaptation.
• Be a one-stop shop with the vast majority of climate financing passing through the fund.
• Ensure that vulnerable communities, especially women and indigenous populations, participate fully in decisions on uses and monitoring at the national level.

"There's a problem with the current system," explained Gore. "We think that the current arrangements for managing climate finances are really broken. They're not delivering the money to those that need it most and can spend it best."

Cate Owren, Program Director for WEDO, noted that, while climate financing is politically challenging, it should not be economically challenging because investments now save money in the future. She also reiterated that design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the fund will be crucial and will help prevent a negative impact on women and marginalized groups. Stories of climate adaptation needs and successes were shared by Alcinda Abreu, Mozambique’s Minister for Coordination of Environmental Affairs. 

The briefing began and ended with the message that the establishment of this fund in Cancun will not only help developing countries adapt to the changing climate and adopt low-carbon development pathways, but also help rebuild trust in the negotiations. While a legally binding climate agreement seems almost certainly not on the cards for this round of negotiations, a fair global climate fund will hopefully produce tangible, concrete outcomes by Friday that addresses the need for both mitigation and adaptation assistance.

 

After almost 12 hours of traveling due to flight delays, my colleague and I completed our journey from San Francisco to Cancun, Mexico. We were greeted by a warm ocean breeze, friendly helpful locals, and banners for the COP16 UN Climate Change Conference decorating every inch of the city. We instantly knew we were in the right place.

Our studio is situated on the west end of the hotel zone, closer to the Cancunmesse and Moon Palace conference centers than the infamous discoteca nightlife. But, famished, we ventured toward the bright lights in the hopes of finding an authentic Mexican dinner. Despite humble requests to our cab driver to take us someplace "tranquilo," we found ourselves dropped off in the heart of Cancun among giant, warehouse-sized designer shops (Louis Vuitton, Chanel), American chain restaurants (Outback Steakhouse, Applebees), and gargantuan night clubs with bumping baselines audible from miles away. This was not the Mexico either of us had ever been to -- or imagined. In fact, it bore a greater resemblance to Las Vegas.

Fearing our search for authentic Mexican food would end at a Taco Bell, we asked a nearby club promoter for advice, and after some labored thought, he pointed us to our only option: a pricey, upscale restaurant complete with Mariachi band, white linens, and an indoor fountain. After dinner (which was delicious), we were saddened to see among the glitz and scantily clad club-goers, several child beggars, and mothers with infants in tow, selling trinkets to tourists. The stark contrast, though not so different from that of many large cities, hinted at an interesting parallel to the conference in town. I was instantly reminded of an article I read on the trip over here that described Cancun as the "suicide capital" of Mexico. Climate change is contributing to the migration of many people out of rural areas of Mexico where crops have become harder to manage and resources harder to gather. But, as people have moved into the city, the divide in urban areas between locals and tourists has led to a culture of extreme poverty, hopelessness, and depression.

As week one of the conference wrapped up, the divide between rich and poor, and inequalities within negotiations were also apparent in many ways. Talks appear to favor the rich, as developed countries have a much greater number of participating delegates and negotiators than developing countries, thus stacking the cards against poorer countries with fewer resources to attend meetings and interpret information.

 

 

Also, the Kyoto Protocol has become the subject of heated debate, as Japan, Russia, and Canada have all rejected a second commitment period under the agreement. This move has sparked objections from developing countries who feel major emitting countries should continue to be held accountable for the targets set under Kyoto.

The impacts of climate change, as we know, disproportionately affect the poor, who are more reliant on natural resources and less able to cope with environmental changes and natural disasters. And the impacts are growing. As was reported in talks this week, an estimated 1 million deaths a year by 2030 and $157 billion in damage will result from climate change. Also reported, was the likelihood that 2010 would rank among the three hottest years in recorded history, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
 
Speaking with a few locals during our first days here, we received mixed responses to the conference which has invaded the town. One cab driver didn't actually believe that climate change was happening, but more importantly he didn't appreciate the inflated security around Cancun which was making it hard for the locals to "party" -- and thus harder for him to run his business. Apparently, groups of machine gun-toting policemen are a deterrent for the normally hassle-free recreational drug use in Cancun's Party Central. We're looking forward to gaining further insight to the local views of the conference this week ... outside of Party Central.

As the UN Climate Change Conference in Tianjin comes to a close this week, the gridlock between the U.S. and China reached a fever pitch in the final negotiations before year-end talks in Cancun. While there has been a general consensus around the need for a "balanced package" (the conference catch phrase), the definition of this phrase varied between conference delegates. The U.S. wants a transparent deal that includes Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV), while China maintains that the U.S. and all developed nations must make binding commitments before it will join an international agreement. The two nations have emerged from talks as major players in the climate change impasse.

Despite U.S. criticism that China is not making serious commitments, hosting the current round of talks has given China a bigger platform to proclaim its impressive clean energy advancements. China has made tremendous progress in wind and solar energy, taking the lead on investment, use and production of renewable energy, and mobilizing to cut carbon intensity in half by 2020. The problem? China may prefer to make technological advancements and set emissions reduction targets on its own terms. China recognizes the opportunity of a green future, but doesn't necessarily feel the need to take on a leadership role in saving the climate.

China is a developing country, but it is also the world's greatest polluter. So while it stands to make the most progress, it also has the greatest responsibility. And so does the U.S. Touting global leadership status and producing the most emissions per capita also comes with great responsibility. According to Karl Burkart of the Global Campaign for Climate Action (GCCA) and Tck Tck Tck, U.S. pledges pale in comparison to China's:

 

• Per capita CO2 emissions 2008: U.S. 19 tons, China 5 tons
• Pledged emissions reductions: U.S. 0.8 gigatons, China 2.5 gigatons (UNFCCC)
• National gas standard:  U.S. 27 MPG, China 34 MPG
• Investment in clean energy 2009: U.S. $19 billion, China $35 billion

During a Climate Action Network (CAN) press conference on Day 1 at Tianjin, a Chinese Greenpeace activist may have said it best when she asked the question, "What kind of role does China want to play in [raising] the international ambition in the international process? Does China want to be part of the driving force, or get a free ride? It's impossible that an elephant as big as China will get a free ride."

 

To learn more, watch daily reports from the UN Climate Change Conference in Tianjin and tune in for the remaining LIVE coverage from our partners at OneClimate.net.