The reasons for China's decision in the climate change negotiations are not only questions of diplomacy, but also include China's economic and energy strategy. Purely to go down the diplomatic route to unify the group of developing countries cannot fundamentally solve China's embarrassing position at the negotiations.

In addition, the article makes two points that require correction.
1.) The US is a signatory to UNFCCC
2.) Stern is an American climate special envoy, not an assistant.
(Translated by Matthew Bailey)

The so called low-carbon city is in essence just the city's energy saving and emissions cutting; by creating this new concept some scholars are able to seize the opportunity to make money.
(Comment translated by Matthew Bailey)

The article says that a key result of Copenhagen is that, starting from 2020, developed countries have promised 100 billion dollars to help the most vulnerable countries adapt to to climate change; it also said that this requires the establishment of a carbon trading market, raising funds through the market's operation, while saying that various laws proposed in America will weaken the level of support.

The causes of climate change have been around for a long time, and take a long time to explain. It is not possible to work out how much CO2 each country "gifted" to the atmosphere. However, we are not treating everyone the same because of this impossibility. Firstly, we cannot rely on monetary assistance from developed countries: for one, it is hard to say what will happen in the 10 years between now and 2020; secondly, it appears that China has already been excluded and will not enjoy these benefits; thirdly, as demonstrated in the stir created when a former student who had studied abroad, after earning money, donated a huge amount to Yale, but not to his alma mater Renmin University, we still need to rely on the government to solve all sorts of disputes. If we want to behave like an important country, we need to be able to act decisively. There is no one government in the world that can accomplish this mammoth task, and so this is not easy to do.
So what should we do? I think there is a simple solution- transfer of knowledge from industrialised countries to poor countries. One of our ancestors once said, "It's better to teach a man how to fish than to give him a fish", which means that you need to teach people the means to live, and not solely rely on handing out gifts . The latter cannot last forever, and also breeds a culture of laziness. Never mind 100 billion, 1000 billion dollars would be a drop in the ocean for the poor countries. History has proved this long ago. However, if the developed countries took a small portion of this 100 billion, say one percent (a billion dollars) and used it to help developing nations establish the capability to respond to climate change, I estimate that 20-30,000 people a year could be trained. These people could link up with the real situation in their country, and map out their country's road towards saving energy and cutting emissions. This would definitely have highly positive repercussions for the whole world. Who doesn't see the sense in the saying "one's thought determines one's end"? The situation now is that both developed and developing countries are not thinking- perhaps they really aren't, or perhaps they're just acting stupid- but in any case the nobody is being very positive in training fresh troops for the battle against climate change. "The emperor is calm, while the eunuchs are anxious". Today, there are no eunuchs, making it really hard to take action.
As for developing countries and climate change, UN standards, such as income levels, economic models etc, cannot be used as a yardstick by which to measure whether or not a country requires help in responding to climate change. The developed countries did not make this clear, which was the reason behind "China being unhappy". We realise that some countries are truly helpless when faced with global warming, such as the Maldives and the Pacific (sic) nation Madagascar. Why? Because firstly, their historical emissions are very small- they are victims pure and simple. Secondly, saving energy and cutting emissions is of no use to them, because their energy consumption is so low. Even if the entire country reverted to the Stone Age, they could not alter their fate. However, there are countries, including America, Japan, China, India, Brazil and Russia, especially America and the so-called BRIC countries, that need to shoulder a comparatively large obligation. Why? Apart from Russia, the development of these countries relies on large volumes of resources, so the potential advantages to be gained are especially numerous. Another aspect of this is that the benefits gained through saving energy and cutting CO2 is greatest in these countries. No matter what way you look at it, these countries are the greatest beneficiaries of the CO2 emissions to date, and it is only natural that they should take on more responsibility. I believe that this is the implication of "collective, but differentiated responsibility" in this new situation. In order to realise this principle, isn't training the most economically viable method?

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.