在过去这就是靠战争才能解决的事。现在试图靠谈判而避免战争争夺稀缺资源，抵抗弱肉强食的本性，可见多么艰难。

What we've been negotiating on was previously solved by war. Now through negotiation, we attempt to avoid fighting physically for a scarce resource (co2 emission). In this way, we are attempting to suppress the law of jungle which is embedded in human nature. See how incredibly tough it is.

看到本文最后的总结，认为”新兴大国在自愿减排上已做出了艰苦卓绝的努力“，我倒是觉得换成”新兴大国在自愿减排上已经吹破了天“可能更贴合实际一些，在未来就很难”自圆其说了“，因为忽悠不下去了。一大堆从来没有搞过节能减排的人，不管他是什么博士，教授，总是跟在别人的屁股后边捡些牙慧，怎么能够在国际上论理呢？连自己人都说服不了。

When I read the conclusion to this article stating 'Emerging nations have already made remarkable efforts with voluntary emissions reductions', I actually thought it should be changed to 'Emerging nations have already blown out the candle on voluntary emissions reductions' so as to conform to reality a little better, in the future it will be very difficult to 'speak from among one's own circle', because it may no longer be there. There is a large portion of people who have never done anything to save energy or reduce emissions, and it doesn't matter whether he is a Dr., or a professor, he will always be left to pick up the pieces, then how can this make sense on an international scale, when he can't even convince his own people?

想必各位看家都读过斯特恩爵士的"The Economics of Climate Change"，那个名字明明讲的是”气候变化的经济学“，我们现在的各位专家谈的都是”气候变化的国际政治学“，人人都变成气候变化政治学家了，而不是气候变化经济学家，真是个怪事。这是不是说明，实际上咱们现在还没有这样的”气候变化经济学家“呢？说不定。当然了，政治和经济紧密相关，这两个复杂的，千变万化的，并且没有任何对与错的问题搅合在一起，结果就是没有谁是绝对之权威，也没有谁是绝对之笨伯。那么谁能告诉我们，对中国而言，这个帐到底该如何算呢？

Surely you have all ready Sir Stern's "The Economics of Climate Change," which, by its name, clearly discusses the economics of climate change. Now that all of our experts are discussing the "international politics of climate change," everyone has become climate change political scientists, as opposed to climate change economists. This is very strange. Doesn't this say that, in reality, we don't have any "climate change economists?" Perhaps. Of course, politics and economics are closely related; both are complex and changing often, and there are no right and wrong questions together. The result is that there is no absolute authority, nor absolute fool. So who can tell us, as far as China is concerned, exactly how to settle this account? (Translated by David Vance Wagner)