文章讲的比较全面，也比较浅显，方便我们这种非专业的读者阅读。可惜作者只在最后两段发表了一下自己的看法，要是能多谈谈“双轨并一轨”的意义和可能性就更好了！

This article is comprehensive and easy to understand, especially helpful for non-professionals like me. It's a pity that the author doesn't express her own opinions until the last 2 paragraphs. It will be even better to talk more on the meaning and possibility of merging the negotiation from twin-tracks towards single-track.

美国现在有众、参议院两个版本的气候立法。

《清洁能源安全法案》是众议院版气候法案，已经在众议院通过了。

参议院版的气候立法是《清洁能源工作和美国电力法案》，这个法案才是被寄望在春天通过。

再由一个协调委员会对这两个法案进行折中，最后交由总统签字。

Currently the United States has two pieces of climate legislation, that of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The 'Clean Energy and Security Act' is the bill proposed by the House of Representation and has already been passed.

The Senate's climate legislation is called the 'Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act'. This bill is expected to be approved in spring.

There will then follow a proposal of compromises for these two bills by the coordination committee, and the final version will then be signed by the President.

也就是说，哥本哈根的失败，不止归功于中国，美国和印度也开心咯？

To put it another way: China is not the only one who is happy to see the failure of Copenhagen, so are America and India?

(translated by Ge Bo)

美国对哥本哈根的失败实际上还是很高兴的，最失望的是欧洲，中国跟在后面瞎混，凑热闹。为什么呢？你想啊，美国没有批准京都议定书，在世界舆论面前很被动。Obama总统上来，想在应对气候变化上面改变这种由欧洲主导的局面，获得政治，经济和道义上的分数。如果继续按照京都议定书的路子走，得益最多的是欧洲，而不是美国。就是说，美国为欧洲和中国作嫁衣裳，你说美国人内心愿意吗？！如此的结果，就给美国赢得了时间，在未来的一年时间里可以更全盘的考虑这个棋如何下。中国是看到了1步棋，美国已经看到了3步棋，这就是差距。我们在哥本哈根上只代表了自己，说得越多，就说明你越无知，“言多必失嘛”。美国人的看法的逻辑是，这种全球的协议成功性本来就很小，即便达成了，执行力也是个很大的问题，不如贸易法案来得快，有威慑力。那么就从贸易上下手，通过国内的Waxman Markey法，来规范和约束在国际框架下不好约束的中国和印度（主要是中国）的排放，逼迫这些国家采取措施，为达成国际规则打下基础。如果哥本哈根成功了，那么美国就不好办了，前面费了半天劲才在众议院通过的法就是白忙了。这也就是为什么参院要等到哥本哈根结束才来辩论这部法案的原因。我们可千万不能以为躲过了这一招就万事大吉了。

The US is the happiest country to see the failure of Copenhagen, while Europe is the most disappointed, followed by China. Why? The US did not approve the Kyoto Protocol, making the country appear passive in the face of global public opinion. Since President Obama's inauguration, the US has been tring to change the situation of Europe's dominance in climate change issues, as well as its inexorable influence in politics, economics, and morality. If following the route of the Kyoto Protocol, Europe is the clear beneficiary (not the US). In other words, the US would work for the benefit of Europe and China, which I doubt Americans would be willing to do so. Thus, the U.S. has won time to contemplate its next move within the next year. China, on the other hand, knows its next move, while the US already knows its next three moves— this is precisely the disparity. At Copenhagen, we only represented ourselves, the more you say, the more mistakes you will make. America’s logic is the success of such a global protocol is minimal: even if an agreement is reached, there are still problems of implementation and is less effective than the trade bill. So from the perspective of trade, via the Waxman-Markey Bill, comes the regulation and restriction within the international framework to constrain China and India’s (primarily China’s) emissions, forcing these countries to adopt measures because an international agreement was defeated. If Copenhagen had succeeded, then the US would have wasted a lot of time passing the Waxman-Markey Bill through the House. Therefore, this is why the Senate wanted to wait until Copenhagen concluded in debating the bill. Surely, it's stupid to believe that everything will be fine because we survived this time.

刚巧文章提到的美国的法案我看过，真是不看不知道，看了吓一跳。法案长达1428页，对减排可能牵涉到的方方面面都有详细的描述，计划，要求以及财政支持详情。第一页确实有对中国和印度减排的一些不很明确的要求，主要是希望这两个国家能够实施至少不比美国弱的节能减排要求，然后每年向国会回报进展情况，再探讨如何应对。减排和环保不同点在于，如果没有严格的测量，认证，审核和汇报，那么就是彻头彻尾的闹剧。减少嘛，需要两个数字，一个是基值，一个是现值，缺少任何一个都是没有意义的；任何一个值如果不够精确，从统计的角度看也没有意义。假设你说节约了8%，但是这个值的标准差可能有200%，就是说，你节约的范围可正可负，如果你运气不好，可能根本没有节约，反而更浪费了。这是个很复杂的议题，需要大量的人力和物力确定，不是领导讲一句话能解决问题的。关于减排的方方面面，我们确实要向别人学啊，学会了，出师了，那么论起理来，才更理直气壮，而不像现在这样，说些含混的话，自己事后想起来都觉得站不住脚。

I recently read an article about the US climate bill and I was shocked at what I discovered. The bill is a staggering 1428 pages long and includes all kinds of detailed descriptions, plans, and requirements as well as the finances regarding the proposed emissions reductions. The first page of the bill does not clearly specify requirements for China and India but states that it hopes both countries will commit to reductions at least as aggressive as those set forth by the US. The bill also stipulates that Congress will report on annual progress and then decide how to respond accordingly. Reducing emissions and protecting the environment are different but both depend on strict measurements, verification, and reporting; without these things it's all a downright farce. When talking about cutting emissions you need two figures: one being the value of contribution and the other being the present value. If you lack either one or if either value if not precise enough from a statistical point of view then all meaning is lost. Suppose you say that you have increased savings by 8%, but the standard deviation of the figure is 200%. This means the scope of your savings could be positive or negative. If you're unlucky, you may have not only saved nothing, but actually wasted more. This is a very complex issue that requires significant attention and many more resources; it's not something that can be resolved with a few words between politicians. With regard to every aspect of reducing emissions, we really must learn from others and fully understand this knowledge before we are able to go beyond with complete confidence. We cannot continue to make vague statements as we do now and then later think to ourselves that we are unable to stand our ground.

Comment translated by Clay Baylor

3号说的很有道理，但是却回避了中国最现实的问题。发展对中国意味着什么？至少有一点，就是让那些生活艰难和拮据的人，至少可以过上有基本生活保障的生活。物欲的过分膨胀是不明智的，但那并不是发展的全部。

The third comment really makes sense, but avoids dealing with China's most real problem. What is the meaning of development to China? It is at least letting those who have a hard life without much money, living a life that is in keeping with the most basic life securities. An unreasonable increase in the desire for things is not sensible, but that is not all that development is comprised of.