感谢清晰的概述，但是下面这句真的一定如此么？“如果美国不带头减排，中国也不会跟着照做。这会带来悲剧性后果，无论中美两国，还是整个世界的遭遇都将非常悲惨。”美国必须带头么？为什么中国不能带头？如果中国带了头，美国会不跟着照做么？

Anthony Barnett

Thanks for clear overview, but must the following claim be the case: "If the United States will not lead, China will not follow, and the results will be tragic: both countries will suffer grievously, and so will the rest of the world"? Does the US have to lead? Why can't China do so? If China did lead, would not the US have to follow?

Anthony Barnett

让人难过的是不住在中国的人比住在中国的人更加关心中国的环境。

为什么会这样？

让住在中国的人意识到环境保护的重要性不是更关键么？

what I feel really sad about is that people who live outside of china seem care so much more about China's environment than those people who live in the country.

Why is that???

isn't that more important for people who live in the country to realize the importance of protecting the environment????

答评论5：当你连温饱问题都不能解决的时候，你会去为气候变化担忧么？请试着站在他们的角度考虑问题。不要理所当然地认为他们应该跟你想得一样。

a really quick answer to the comment 5 is, will you start worrying about blue sky and future climate change when you cannot have enough money to feed your children and yourself today? try to stand at their position and look at their immediate concerns rather than assuming they should think the same as you.

斯科勒写的这篇文章最先于4月15日在《华盛顿邮报》刊出，所以目标主要是美国读者。对评论4的回复：中国有些做法确实已经领先于美国，比如汽车发动机的功效。但是中国可能还是需要继续从国外进口技术支持。两国人民难道就不能合作起来，促成政治上的主动么？斯科勒的建议应该被广泛地应用，正如我的博客里的文章
“The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics. ”所指出的那样。

Caspar Henderson

This article by Schell first appeared in the Washington Post on 15 April, so was largely intended for US readers. In response to comment 4 notes, there are some ways in which China already leads the US - for example vehicle engine efficiency; but it is likely that China will continue to need and benefit from technological input from other nations. In terms of political initiatives, why should they not come from people in both countries, and others, working together. A task force of the kind Schell suggests could be broadened out - perhaps as I have suggested in The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics.

Caspar Henderson

Juliet，我想你指出了一个事实就是穷人更易受到遭受环境污染带来的灾难，而富人却正在为污染火上浇油。这就是气候变化的真正情况。现在世界上的二氧化碳排放其实是那些发达国家在他们工业化的时候制造的，而不是现在发展中国家的责任，因为二氧化碳会在大气中存在100至200年。

但是不像以前的那些进行工业化的国家，现在的发展中国家更受自然资源和世界环境问题的限制。正如中国的污染问题，中国很大一部分污染都是因为生产出口产品造成的。这样发达国家的人民才能在享受廉价物品的同时还可以免受污染的困扰。这样的“污染出口”也是发达国家能逐步改善其环境的原因之一。

我并不是说中国不用注重保护自己的环境，相反的，没有什么比意识到现状的严重性及行动起来保护环境更重要的了。因为正如你所说的，这是一个马上事关很多人生存的问题。但是另一方面，发达国家就只是催促中国人民和政府保护环境，而他们自己却充当着“道德高尚”的监督员，摆出一幅事不关己的嘴脸，指手画脚颐指气使么？事实上除了盲目的责骂，发达国家可以通过多种办法为他们自己所造成的现状负责，而与发展中国家合作避免悲剧重演的空间也很大。

对于其他人比中国人自己更关注中国的（事实上是整个世界的）环境问题这一点我并不觉得有什么可鄙的。因为中国人到底有多关心他们的生存环境并不能从他们现在的所作所为看出来。当然，大多数人不可能看得太远，而这也包括发达国家的人。我们的决策总是不能避免妥协，人们总是先考虑眼下的需求。饮鸩止渴不能解决问题，但是这却正是现在很多人正在做的。你了解的越多，就会越迫切地觉得要尽快帮助人们摆脱这种两难境地。但是这需要更加富有，更加发达，并且幸运的话，更加文明的国家的帮助和行动。

王涛

Juliet, I think you pointed out a reality, that the poorer are the more vulnerable to pollution, and the richer are less vulnerable and contribute more to the pollution. This is true to the climate change. The CO2 emission that have taken the world to today's dangerous situation was by majority produced by developed countries during their industrialisation rather than the developing countries today, because CO2 stays in atmosphere for 100-200 years for its warming effects.

But unlike early industrialisation countries, today's developing countries are more constrained by natural resources and international environment issues. Similar to other pollution in China, a large proportion of the pollution generated in China is from manufacturing export products; therefore people in developed countries can enjoy cheap goods without suffering from pollution they cause. This kind of "pollution export" has been part of the reasons for the improved environment in developed counties.

I am not saying that Chinese people should not care about their own environment. Rather, nothing can be more important for us to realize the serious situation and to react to save our own environment, because as you say, it will be an issue of survival for many people soon. But on the other hand, shall people in developed just urge Chinese people and Chinese government to be more responsible, while themselves only remain as a "morally superior" international environment watchdog, pointing out this and that wrong with their clean hand? There are many ways for the developed countries to be more responsible for what they have caused and there is large scope to collaborate with the developing countries to avoid repeating the same mistakes again, for our own common environment, but scolding without considering their situation certainly isn't one of them.

I wouldn't feel really sad if there are people caring more about China's (but in fact it is the whole world's) environment than Chinese people themselves. In fact, how much Chinese people care about their living environment cannot be simply judged by what they are doing. Most of us, wherever, are unfortunately short-eyesight animal, not just in China or developing countries. Compromise is always made in our decision, and immediate demand always comes with high priority. 饮鸩止渴 is not a right thing to do, but is now a real thing done in many places. The more you know, the more urgent you will feel to help them out of the dilemma situation. But that need real actions from the more wealthy, more developed and hopefully more civilized countries.

Tao Wang

我强烈支持评论9中的观点！！王涛做得好！环境问题是全人类的问题，合作才能找到解决的办法。

I strongly support the opinions elaborated in Comment nine!! Well done, Tao Wang. Environmental problems face all human beings, thus coordinated efforts are needed to find solutions.