作者在文中提出的“在人类防止灾难性气候变化的努力中，中国是成败的关键”这句话是什么意思？关键在于每个人的努力。西方国家应尽他们自己的力量，而不是把中国的立场作为付出努力的条件。我相信中国也会采取行动。请不要把抗击气候变化看作一个游戏。尽你自己的一分力量，请先打整自己的事务，然后再来管理这个世界。

该评论由 Stacy Xu 翻译

What does it mean that "China holds the key to the success of humanity’s efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change?" The key is in the hands of everybody. The West should make any efforts they can instead of conditioning all these on China's stance. I believe China will take action as well. Stop treating tackling climate change as a game. Just do what you should do, clean up your mess first and then you can police the world.

我还读到"即便发达国家做出巨大的努力,如果发展中国家不采取行动的话, 全球也不可能达到一个安全的碳排放水平．但是，这样说的证据（发展国家努力而无效）在哪里？难道每个人尽所能而为不重要吗？

I have heard that "even with extraordinary efforts on the part of developed countries, it will not be possible to reach a safe level of emissions if developing countries do not also take action." But where is the evidence? And isn't it important for everyone to do as much as they can?

你可以在这一 文章中看到很有说服力的证据. 　全球发展中心的研究者的研究结论是：有一种观念认为，南方国家可以干在灾难性的气候变化发生之前，利用碳密集的增长方式极大地增加收入，这是一种依靠化石燃料推动、最后的发展方式，我们的结果揭示了这种观念的危险谬误。按照这种观念，南方国家的确能够取得短期的发展，但沿着碳密集发展道路必然会遇到致命的气候门槛，即使北方没有进行过任何排放也一样。

"But where is the evidence?" Compelling evidence is offered in the recently published paper by David Wheeler, Kevin Ummel and Robin Kraft, researchers at the Center for Global Development. (See chinadialogue, "Another inconvenient truth") Their conclusion: "Our results reveal the dangerous fallacy in the notion that the south can utilise carbon-intensive growth to dramatically increase incomes... before the onset of catastrophic climate change. In this scenario the south achieves rapid short-run development, but on a carbon-intensive path that virtually assures the crossing of critical climate thresholds, even if there had never been any emissions from the north."

我认为，发达国家无论如何都必须立即减排是至关重要。部分的减排过程包括了发达国家必须停止向发展中国家购买排放额。我们必须在产品上注明碳指标，或许碳税制度。这最终将排放额内在化而溶入市场。(秀錂译)

I think its important that developed countries quickly reduce their emissions - no matter what. Part of this reduction process though should also be that developed countries stop outsourcing emissions to production sights in developing countries. We need a carbon indication on products and probably a carbon tax/tariff. This way emissions are finally internalized into the market.

能起到关键作用的还要说是中国。如果说过去的污染物排放是西方国家的责任的话，那么正如之前评论所讲，中国将在未来废弃物的排放中扮演主要角色。我们一致同意发达国家应当且必须做出最大的努力，但这些努力离不开发展中国家的相应行动。就像文章中提出的，现在的重中之重是基于这些现实，尽快找到公平公正的解决方案。该评论由Zheng Shen翻译

It is not negative to say that China holds the key .. if the past emission are the responsibility of the West, China will play a major part in future emissions as previous comments say. Whatever the advanced countries do -- and they must, we all agree, do the maximum, t will not be enough without the developing countries. Surely the point is to find, as the article says, a just and equitable solution that takes these facts as its starting point

我不同意评论4所述。哥本哈根是关于将来，同时也是过去。没有人责备中国的过去—京都条约已经表明了这一点。然而，中国的确地愿意成为将来的一份子吗？毕竟这也是中国的将来，政府的气候计划已经对缓和气候变化的努力作出了承诺。我再次的阅读这篇文章，而不觉得它在批评中国或者告诉中国应该怎么做。(秀錂译)

I disagree with this comment. Copenhagen is about the future, as well as the past. Nobody is blaming China for the past -- the Kyoto treaty makes this clear. But surely China is willing to be part of the future? After all it is China's future too and the government's climate plan commits to serious mitigation efforts. I have read this article again and I don't see that it is criticising China or telling China what to do.

中国政府的官方政绩是有KPI,即关键绩效指标来评定的。一般来说，这由各自省市所吸引的投资所决定。因为生产制造业可吸引更多的投资，中国的发展重视mfg。现在所需的是新的KPI指标以衡量各省绩效，为吸引正当投资和发展做出积极的推动。解决办法有什么呢？这是有待明了的问题。

translated by - Yunqin

Chinese govt. officials performance is judged by KPIs (key performance indicators). Frequently, this means investment deals attracted to their city or province. Because manufacturing attracts greater capital investment, China's development has been weighted to mfg. What is needed are new KPIs for measuring their performance, providing them an incentive to attract clean investment and development. What is the solution? That is what needs to be figured out.

我也很讨厌一些记者对中国的指责,以及把整个世界的责任都推在中国肩上的报道.我是一个美国人,不久前,一位美国记者采访了我.他是以这样的方式开场的:"研究关于中国的环境方面的政治问题一定很有趣吧!因为中国是主要的污染者,而且没有对气候变化做出一丁点贡献." 对于他这种完全不正确而且无知的态度,我认为在西方国家是很普遍的.但是,本篇文章并没有持有这种态度.正如评论7的作者强调的,本文作者只不过指出中国在改变气候的未来行动中将会贡献巨大的力量. 中国人口众多,地域广阔.没有人能够否认其在国际上节能减排的巨大力量.至少不象评论1所说的, 诸如美国这样的国家不应该为全世界做出榜样.这种国与国之间无谓的争吵不断,我们大家都感到很失望.我想起了我的堂兄:"詹妮没有做作业,那我也不做." 真是孩子气.--Alecia Waite

该评论由Stacy Xu 翻译.

I too am sick of hearing journalists blame China, or put the entire state of the world on China's shoulders. I'm American, and an American journalist recently interviewed me, using this as a prompt: "Well, it must be interesting to study the environmental politics of China, because they're our main polluter, and they're not doing anything about climate change."

I think this (completely incorrect and ignorant) attitude is very prevalent in the West. But, I don't see this attitude in this article. As the author of Comment 7 noted, this article is merely pointing out that China has a big role in the future of climate change. It's a big country, with a lot of people. Nobody can deny that it's crucial to an international effort to mitigate emissions. That doesn't mean, in the least, that nations like the US shouldn't lead by example, as the author of comment 1 pointed out.

Like all of you, I'm dissapointed that this argument between nations is still occurring. It reminds me of my cousins, "Well If Jenny doesn't do her homework, then I don't have to either." How childish.

--Alecia Waite

张言，恕我直言，你似乎有点自相矛盾。你一方面说，中外对话不应该告诉中国该做些什么(尽管目前为止我仍没见过有人这么做)，另一方面你却批评这篇文章里没提出新建议。怎么回事？你的建议呢？为什么你对一个普遍问题的回应会变成抱怨人家提出这个问题？西方人对中国人印象不好的原因之一是，似乎如果没有人抱怨中国是被欺侮的国家，(尽管目前仍无证据可言，)那大家似乎不可能就某些共同问题进行讨论。中国人口占世界人口5%。难道还不是时候放下你这种幼稚的爱国主义，做个有建设性和有责任感的地球人，对威胁中国和其它地方的问题做些有建设性和认真的贡献？(此评论由Canly Tseng翻译)

Zhang
If you forgive me pointing it out there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in what you say. On the one hand you say chinadialogue shouldn't tell China what to do (though nobody had as far as I can see) and on the other you complain that there are no new suggestions in the article. Which is it? And where are your suggestions? Why is it that your only response to the statement of a common problem seems to be to complain that the problem has been raised? One of the reasons that people in the West have a negative view of China is that it seems impossible to talk about common problems without someone complaining that China is being pushed around, though evidence for this happening today is rarely offered. China is one fifth of the world's population. Isn't it time to grow out of this infantile nationalism and accept the responsibilities of being a constructive and serious global player, making a constructive and serious contribution to a problem that threatens China as much as the rest of the world?