如果我们能节约用电,减少电能的消耗,那么煤的使用量也会相应减少.
很多城市上夜景工程,这种对电能的浪费,如果政府能及早制止,可以减少很多资源的消耗,比如夜景工程的那些灯具.这部分钱可以用于更有益的事情,比如教育,环保.
分割出环境问题的某一部分来分析,解决,则又会有新的问题产生.

If we can economise in using electricity, reducing the consumption of electric power, then the amount of coal use will similarly be reduced. Many cities have engineered the way they look at night--if the government could prevent this kind of waste of electric power as soon as possible, it would greatly reduce resource consumption, for example the engineered nightscape of those bright lights. The portion of money spent on this could be used for more beneficial projects, for example education and environmental protection. If you try to separate out a certain part of the environmental problem for analysis and then solve it, this will in turn create new problems.

当人们还为生活发愁的时候是不会考虑环境问题的，当人们忙于把钱包弄鼓的时候也是不会考虑环境问题的，当人们整日沉迷于花天酒地时，想到的是如何才能快乐与刺激，这时候更没心思去关心周围的环境。难道非得到了所谓的共产主义社会，人们的所有欲望都得到满足时，才会想想我们周围的空气新不新鲜？难道我们也必须走国外的边发展，边污染，而后再回头来治理的路子？
中国的环境问题想来也真的很难，唯独国家重视，政府强制，人民配合才能解决。

When people are still worried about how to make a living, and are busy trying to fill their wallets, they cannot think about environmental issues. When people spend their days indulging in material luxury, and are concerned with how to find happiness and excitement, they spend even less effort on heeding the environment around them. Could it be that only when we have attained a so-called communist society, and people's every desire has been satisfied, that we can start thinking about whether the air around us is fresh or not? Could it be that we have to tread the path of foreign countries, polluting as we develop only to turn around and deal with the problem afterwards? When one considers China's environmental problems, they are truly very difficult, and can only be resolved when the nation takes them seriously, the government effectively manages them, and the people cooperate.

燕赵都市报3月5日报道 3月4日，中国科学院院士、郑州大学教授霍裕平委员在两会上接受媒体采访时发表看法说，如今引人关注的“全球变暖”恐慌是炒作，他认为，中国政府不应为此降低能源消耗。

他提出警告说，“过多地强调环境的全球变暖，既不可能阻止环境的变化，反而限制了一些发展中国家比如印度、中国，没有能源我们就不能发展，只有经济充沛发展，找到了真正的替代物，比如核能、太阳能大规模使用，能够占到能源的50%以上，如果不能做到这点，这个趋势是不可改变的。”

他指责目前媒体包括政府当中一部分人在炒作这个话题，炒作范围包括学术上，还有“一部分是利益集团的炒作，举例说，中国石油集团有很大炒作作用，因为他们关心石油利率。”

Yan Zhao City Paper on 5th Mar reported that Huo Yuping, an academician with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, also a professor of Zhengzhou University said on the sidelines of NPC&CPPCC meetings that the surging panic due to "global warming" is exaggerated. He thinks that Chinese government should not reduce resource consumption.

He warned that excessive emphasis on global warming will restrain the development of some developing countries, such as China and India. It is impossible for these nations to make progress with no resources. He thinks that one can only take the responsibility when its economy is advanced enough to find the substitution, for example solar or nuclear power, and make it as the major way of power generation. If it does not reach this phase, then it must continue using fossil fuel for power generation.

He criticised the media, including someone in the government of making use of global warming to make big headlines in the academia. He also blamed some particular interest groups, like China National Petroleum Corporation. "because they care about the oil interest rate." He said.

霍教授的话正确与否，暂且不评论。但是我们必须允许并鼓励这样的声音说出来，上面的引用文字中，霍教授有句很重要的话被忽略了，就是：他说，自己对此已有调查和研究。毛主席说过，没有调查就没有发言权。霍教授调查了，就应该大声说出来。没有调查，就不能乱说。之前有很多环境事例，的确就是炒作。

蒋教授提倡少用化石燃料，这的确是好事；但是他提倡的另外一种替代方法，使用秸秆制造的沼气发电，却和使用化石燃料是半斤八两，都是将原本会储存在土壤中的碳释放到大气中，变成二氧化碳。

全球环境变暖是学术界的主流声音，但不一定就是正确的，其发展变化非常复杂。提一个小问题，想了解环境变暖的人可以想想：为什么是温室气体的存在导致了全球气候变暖，而不是产生这些气体过程中散发的热量导致了全球温度的升高？
- Aturen

Regardless of Huo's being right or wrong, we should firstly allow and encourage different points of view. One of his point was lost before, that is "i have done studies and researches myself". Chairman Mao once said, "no investigate, no say-so". Huo has done his own investigation, so he should say his opinions aloud. There are many environmental issues being exaggerated, in order to make big headlines.

It is good for Professor Jiang to advocate cutting use of fossil fuel, but the one in substitution, the straw production for power generation, is almost the same as using fossil fuel. Both methods will produce carbon emissions.

Global warming is a major concern of the academia, but their opinions may not be correct and the situation keeps changing. Here I ask a question, those who want to know more about global warming could think about it: why does green gas, but not the heat during the production of it cause global warming?
-Aturen

感谢上面网友的评论和有益的建议。但是这里作者必须澄清的事实是，秸秆发电用的是空气中的碳，是植物光合作用当年的产物。因为作物多为一年生为主。即植物从空气中取二氧化碳，进行光合作用，然后贮存能量与物质，秸秆发电就是用其中的能量。煤炭是3-5亿年前的植物光合产物，是从地下来的，大量燃烧，陆地植物和海洋生物以及地球化学反应等来不及固定，造成二氧化碳浓度升高。

所以，烧秸秆和烧煤炭绝对不是半斤八两，而是有“天”“地”之区别。从空中来再到空中去不会造成碳的增加；相反，从地下来，到天上去，才增加了碳的净排放。

您理解的将原本储存的土壤中的碳释放是不对的，土壤会释放碳，那是微生物和植物根系的分解活动的结果，跟秸秆燃烧没有关系。植物从土壤吸收的是一些矿质元素，可以通过灰粉返回土壤。当然，燃烧过程中氮等会损失，甚至其中牲畜可以吃的饲料，因此，作者提倡利用沼气发电。秸秆发电的最好是牲畜不吃的部分如棉花秸秆和林业的废弃物。

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. However, I hereby must clarify that it is the carbon in the air that is consumed by the straw burning. The carbon was cumulated by the photosythesis of the crop during their living year, because most of them are annual crop. The crop use the carbon in the air to photosynthesize, and then store energy and materials, which are the exact energy consumed by straw burning. Coal is the result of the photosynthesis of plants 300-500 million years ago. If excessive carbon is produced by burning large amount of coal, then there will be not enough time for the chemical reactions happening in the atmosphere to consume all of it. That is why the levels of carbon dioxide keeps increasing.

Therefore, the difference between straw burning and coal burning is extremely large. Straw burning which consumes the carbon which exactly comes from the air previously will not increase the level of carbon dioxide.

Someone mentioned the soil will also cause carbon emission. This is not true. The emission relating to the soil is caused by the microorganism and roots of the crop, it has nothing to do with straw burning. Obviously, nitrogen of the crop will be lost through burning, even some feeding stuffs for the livestock, that is why I introduce methane production for power generation. The crop used for burning should better be those that are not feeding stuffs, such as cotton crop and wastes from forestry industry.

全球气候变化可以说是当今人类所面临的最为严峻的挑战之一。可再生能源，作为化石燃料的替代品，的确是减缓气候变化的一剂良药。但是在目前可再生能源成本较高，而化石燃料，尤其是煤在中国还相对便宜的情况下，仅仅依靠企业，用户和市场本身是不可能达到扩大可再生能源的目的。国家以及地方政府必须提供有力有效的政策措施，必要的财政帮助，来鼓励进一步的基础研究和市场开发，才可能达到大规模的可再生能源的推广和使用。

另外，作为一个负责任的大国来说，中国理应扫清自己门前的雪，为地球的降温作出贡献。然而必须指出的是，气候变化是由于发达国家从工业革命以后泛滥的化石燃料使用而引起的，这些国家必须率先行动起来。庞大的人口基数和高速发展的经济让中国的温室气体排放日渐增多，但是不容忽视的是中国的人均排放水平低于世界平均水平。中国要在减缓气候变化方面作出努力，比如说节能，使用清洁能源，尽量避免发达国家在工业化过程中所出现的重污染重排放的现象。但是，中国不应该承担减排的主要责任。

Climate change seems to be the most challenging issue faced by the world nowadays. Renewable sources, as the substitution of fossil fuel, is surely an effective method to fight against climate change. However, renewable resources are costly at present, while fossil fuels are much cheaper. Generalisation of renewable resources cannot be achieved by only depending on the companies, consumers and the market. Governments should make effective policies and regulations and offer financial supports to further encourage the fundamental research and market extension.

Furthermore, as a responsible country, China should do its own contribution to reduce the temperature. What should be pointed out here is that, climate change is caused by the fossil fuels used by the developed countries after Industrial Revolution. These countries must act firstly. Although China has a large amout of population, and its fast development causes more emissions of green gas, its average amount of emission is still lower than that of the world. China should make its own efforts on tackling the issue of climate change, such as the efficiency of resource using, clean resource adopting and avoiding the heavy pollution and emission appearing in the industialisation of the developed countries. However, China should not take the main responsibility of cutting the emission.

最近看了一部有关全球变暖的纪录片，是Channel 4出的《The Great Global Warming Swindle》。片子里，邀请了一系列环境领域及相关组织的专家，对“人为造成全球变暖（Human-made Global Warming）”这一提法，从历史、环境研究、政治、媒体、经济等各个角度进行考察、质疑，其中提出的一些结论或许对许多人（包括我这样在学环境的人）来说都是震撼的。他们认为把全球变暖归咎于二氧化碳等温室气体是错误的，因为其效应需要100-200年才能体现出来，而数据显示，太阳活动的强弱与全球气温变化有更直接、更实时和更可靠的联系。另外，在当今全球变暖成为国际重要议题的今天，西方发达国家为主导的环境运动倡导的少用碳燃料，而改用太阳能和风能，对于第三世界国家，尤其是非洲国家的现状来说，是不现实和不人道的。
对于我来说，这部片子的论点与“人为造成全球变暖”的论点一样，都是要怀着一种科学怀疑的态度。环境恶化、全球变暖的现实是摆在眼前、不容置疑的事实，至于其原因及如何解决，是需要从更全面、更科学的角度来看待这些问题的，尤其是自然界环环相扣的特点，不可能单单用一个因素就说明其因果关系；而要解决环境议题，发达国家首先要起到表率作用，而不能对所有国家用同样要求，尤其是把它作为政治筹码来限制其他国家的发展，以谋求自己在国际政治、经济方面的利益。当前国际碳市场日趋形成规模，而清洁能源市场也正蓬勃发展，如何使环境事业及相关的经济行为朝健康、公平的方向发展，需要在国家之间有一个平等的对话平台。
如今的社会，人云亦云、跟风盲从的现象挺严重，这样一部针砭时弊的纪录片，无论论点是否完全正确，其积极意义已显而易见。
希望保护环境这样一个美好的愿望，不要被污染，不要被扭曲。

-胡锋(heyjoe@126.com)

Recently I have watched a documentary about Global Warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcasted on Channel 14. This show invited a number of environmental issue specialists as guests to debate over the hypothesis ‘Global Warming is Human Made Problem’. The experts questioned the validation of this claim after scrutinizing the global warming issue from various standpoints: historical, economic, and political perspectives, outcomes based on environmental researches, and media outlook. They concluded that citing carbon dioxide increasing in atmosphere as the primary cause to global warming is false. They argued that the effect of CO2 accretion would take one hundred to two hundred years to appear, and research data suggested that solar activity intensity is more directly, and measurably linked to global climate change than CO2 is. While the global warming has increasingly became a topic addressed to political agendas internationally, the western nations advocate reducing CO2 related energy consumption by switching to solar and wind power as an answer; however such measurement is not a feasible to developing nations, especially Africa nations. It is unrealistic and absent of humane consideration.I hold health doubts about the points presented by both camps; those who claim ‘global warming man made’ and those who deny. Environmental deterioration, global warming is undeniable reality to us; however as to the cause and a solution to the problem, we need to further scientific study to reach for a conclusion. Elements in the nature are functioning correlated; it’s impossible to explain a whole phenomenon by a single ‘cause and effect’ relationship.
To make progress on environment protection, developed nations should take the lead, and should not command developing nations to do the same. Developed nations should not leverage environment protection as a tool to curtail the economic growth of developing nations, thus to gain political and economic advantages for themselves. These days, clean energy is in demand and its market is expanding. The question is how to ensure environmental protection and economic development will work together for a win-win situation. We need a dialogue platform between nations. In these days, people like to follow trends and to ride on high tide; this show offered a valid counter point to the Global Warming Man Made claim. ---- Hu Feng

对评论8有点看法.

从地球整体来看.温度本身就不是恒定的.无论是泥盆纪,二叠级还是侏罗纪都有很热的时候.而冰河时期从名字就知道整体偏冷.古生物学也认为第一次与第二次的生物大灭绝就是因为过冷造成的海面下降以及温度恢复以后的海水缺氧.

虽然我不认为应该任其污染.但是我十分怀疑是否能有实际作用.全地球的人均需求是增加的.人口总数也不见减少.出问题只是迟早的.

I'd like to express somes opinions on comment 8.From the perspective of taking the earth as a whole,the temperature is never constant. Whenever in Devonian, Permian or Jurassic it was hot sometimes. It can be known easily from the name —ice age that it was a cold period. So paleontologists think it’s the sea level descending caused by super-cooling and the sea water oxygen shortage after the temperature restoring result in the first and second creatures extinction. Although I don’t think it should be polluted without control, I suspect whether it is useful. With the increase of the per capita demand and no tendency of population decrease, the problem is just the matter of time.