“今年中国全国政协会议共发放2500台笔记本电脑给政协委员，减少大量纸张的使用，让很多人认为这是环保之举。”

我想这个所谓“环保之举”将会引发很大的争议。办公设备的过度消耗，造成的资源浪费很可能比纸更严重（作者在文中也指出了对废弃电子产品处理的重要性）。更何况，没有任何证据指明，使用笔记本电脑的委员们能熟练运用电子与网络办公技术。会不会到头来，还是将文件用纸墨打出？我们不得而知。

另外，我还对“在家办公也是低碳办公”表示不解和怀疑？不知道有没有人可以给出详细些的解释。谢谢。

我看还是要先搞懂究竟如何定义低碳办公，低碳办公＝无纸化办公？什么样的标准才是低碳办公？

"This year Chinese National People’s Political Consultative Conference (NPPCC) handed out 2,500 laptop computers to delegates, saving huge quantities of paper. Many people regarded this as a pro-environment move."

I think this so-called "pro-environment move" is likely to stoke a great deal of controversy. The energy wasted through excessive power consumption by office equipment is very probably much worse than just wasting paper (the author also points out the importance of dealing effectively with electronic waste). What's more, there is no evidence whatsoever that the NPPCC delegates who have been handed laptops have the skills necessary to use them. Are they going to make effective use of them, or are they just going to end up printing the relevant documents out anyway? We have no way of knowing.

I also doubt the premise that "work done at home is low-carbon work." I'd be grateful if someone out there could give me a more detailed explanation of this? I think the precise definition of "low carbon work" needs a bit more research - is the "paperless office" necessarily a low-carbon workplace? What criteria are we using?

科技在改变生活，GOOGLE，DELL，CISCO这样企业正在试图用科技产品改变能源利用方式，但，个人的意愿也很重要，如果实现了绿色办公，没有实现绿色生活，或许，低碳并不能实现。所以，我认为一方面，我们需要科技进步，另一方面，我们需要改变生活方式。yfy

Technology is changing our lives. Companies like Google, Dell, and Cisco are trying to use scientific products to change the way energy is used. It is also important, however, to take into account personal will. If we only practise "green work" but not "green life", low-carbon living will still not be realized. Therefore, I think on the one hand, we need the technological advancement; on the other, we also need to change our life style. yfy

(translated by xiulu)

企业主动改革自己的办公方式，应该受到社会的鼓励与倡导，这样才会给其它企业动力。

很多企业为了节约成本，办公位十分狭小，工作人员周围都是机器，太痛苦了。

Companies which take the initiative to reform their style at work should be encouraged and supported by the society. Thus other companies will be motivated as well. To cut the cost at work, many companies only have pretty tiny work spaces, and it is really painful to work surrounded by machines.

文章似乎没有把低碳办公与无纸化办公划等号。

在家办公省去了交通这个过程，省时省资源，好处明显。

It seems that we cannot see the relationship between low-carbon working and paperless working. Working at home saves you both time spent on transport and therefore resources, which is obviously beneficial.

Translated by Renate

对SOHO和在办公室办公，我觉得不能单纯做比较，也没有哪个就一定就能节约资源。例如，在家办公，可以省掉交通耗费的资源，但每个人都把家当做办公室，即使把空调开在26度（当然肯定还会有其他的资源消耗），这种多点式的能源消耗也会很大。所以，单纯的比较，是否意义不大。yfy

I don’t think that we can simply compare the work in office and at home, and neither is it definitely better for saving energy. For example, by working from home, you can conserve the energy used for transportation, but if everyone used their house as an office, they would all have to use their air conditioning, even if they only set their air conditioning unit to 26 degrees (of course there will be also be other sources of consumption). So, this kind of energy consumption over multiple locations will also add up. Thus, making a simple comparison doesn't have any meaning. YFy This comment is translated by Tingting Xia

虽然我们常说“环保─从小事做起”，但论及到如低碳办公这样的概念性问题，我认为小打小闹不合时宜。纲领性的标准十分重要。

我相信大部分人是非常乐意在家里办公的。但之所以无法广泛的实现，涉及到工作内容、质量和效率的问题。

如果以牺牲工作效率和质量为代价来减省交通消耗，不仅是企业和个人无法承受的，从长远来说，这也是资源和环境发展不愿意看到的。我坚持认为环保问题不能被单独提出来讨论，抛离了个人生活和社会发展，就失去了我们谈论环保的意义。

--Vegeball

Although we often talk about environmental protection as starting from small actions, but when you are talking about a concept such as the low carbon office, small things don’t make such a lot of difference. A general standardisation is important. I believe that most people would like to work at home, but because it is not easy to implement this on a large scale as it would impact on the work content, quality and efficiency. Neither a company nor an individual can bear making a sacrifice in work efficiency and quality for the sake of saving transportation consumption costs, and in the long term, it will not be conducive to the development of the environment or resources. I firmly believe that environmental issues cannot be a singled out and be discussed separately. Outside the context of human living and the social development, the meaning of talking about environmental protection disappears. --Vegeball Translated by Tingting Xia

农民个个盼望高碳生活，城里人个别希望低碳生活。我就想起了甲方乙方那个向往农村生活的仁兄。把他舅家里的鸡吃完了不算，还早就忘记了他当初的远大志向了。

Every farmer longs for a high-carbon lifestyle, whereas city individuals hope for a low-carbon lifestyle. It makes me think of the character in the film Dream Factory who yearned for a farmer's lifestyle. On top of eating his uncle's family chicken, he quickly forgot his original far-reaching ambition.

Translated by Nathalie Thorne

关于在家办公还是集中在办公室办公，确实如6号所说，不能用单一标准来做比较，到底是何种办公方式更环保低碳，综合的比较标准是必要的。

一个可能结果是，不同行业，环保低碳的办公地点可能不同。

Concerning whether one should work at home or in the office, the point comment 6 makes is true: it is not possible to use a single standard to make a comparison. To find which work method actually is the most low-carbon and environmentally friendly needs a comprehensive standard for comparison. A possible outcome is that the most environmentally friendly low carbon work place is different for different professions.

Translated by Nathalie Thorne

“我相信大部分人是非常乐意在家里办公的。但之所以无法广泛的实现，涉及到工作内容、质量和效率的问题。“这句话非常有道理，在家办公不能仅仅因为可能省时间和资源能源，就什么行业都可以采用，在家办公应该有一定的应用范围，有兴趣的社会机构完全可以根据不同行业的特点，与办公室办公做一个综合比较，给公众一个选择的标准。

关于环保问题能否单独提出来讨论，7号评论似乎不妥。抛弃一些因素，在简单的条件下讨论概念是有意义的，它可以方便问题的讨论。应用概念时再根据具体的环境做一定的修正，这是研究问题经常用的方法吧

"I think a majority of people would be very happy working from home. But for reasons of work content, quality and efficiency, it's not something that is widely practiced."

This is absolutely spot on. One can't assume that savings on time and energy alone automatically means that working from home is universally applicable across every profession. Working from home has certain limits to its application. It would be easy for an interested social institution to produce a comprehensive comparison between working from home and working in the office based on the requirements each profession. This would provide people with a standard against which to make their choice.

However, I disagree over the issue of whether environment issues can be debated in isolation. Sheeding other factors and discussing a concept in simple terms has its uses - it provides a much more convenient background for debate. You can always clarify the concept later according to its specific context - this is a fairly standard way of researching problems.