阿根廷代表团的团长对我说，阿根廷现在就3个CDM项目，都是做垃圾处理的。但是他们希望CDM改革，使自己能有更多项目。

The director of the Argentine delegation told me that in Argentina, there are three CDM projects which are all related to the waste management. However, he hopes CDM will reform, so that they have more projects.

这让我想起了今天关于技术转移的边会上，一位中国环保部的官员向日本谈判官员提议，日本政府从掌握技术的企业买来技术，然后贡献给发展中国家。他说，他肯定中国政府愿意以同样的方式给日本贡献先进技术。

而日本人回答，这种直接给钱的机制得慎重考虑。

This reminds me that in a side-meeting today about technology transfer, a Chinese official from the Ministry of Environmental Protection suggested to a Japanese negotiator that the Japanese government could buy in technology from knowledgeable companies, and then gift it to developing nations. He said that he was certain that the Chinese government would be willing to present Japan with advanced technology using the same method.
The Japanese official's reply was that this type of system, involving direct payment of money, would need to be thought over very carefully.

征碳税的合理性甚至税收中性的实现，在技术上都行得通，但对于实际中的税收制度，很多公众是不信任的，问题的关键不是碳税还是什么别的税的问题，而是一个“税”字本身就引起公众的很多不满。税收的制定、听证存在太多不透明，必须先有税制的全面改革和成果的产生，否则民意将很难接纳新的税种。

The legitimacy of levying a carbon tax and even the achievement of tax neutrality is technically feasible, but many people do not trust the tax system in practice. The crux of the problem is not about carbon tax or any other tax, but the word "tax" itself arouses the public's discontent. With the establishment of taxes and the numerous non-transparencies that exist at hearings, there first needs to be a complete reform of the tax system while producing results, otherwise it will be difficult for the public to accept new kinds of taxes.

在天津开会时在讨论一个问题，就是应该怎么评价美国的谈判技巧。
哥本哈根时突然抛出的巨额资金援助和对中国的明显施压被认为是美国获得主动的技能。但在全球共同解决气候变化问题的前提下，是否更“聪明”的高手应该是矛盾涉及的主要国家通过积极商谈、达成一致，寻求共赢，而不是至对方于不义之地，使谈判陷入僵局呢？毕竟全球化的今天，任何国家吃的“亏”都或多或少会转移到他国身上，想要别人纯亏、自己纯赚的生意已经不多见了。

A question discussed at the Tianjin conference was, how should the negotiating skills of the US be evaluated?
The huge amount of financial assistance that suddenly appeared and the obvious pressure given to China during Copenhagen were considered to be techniques for the US to gain initiative. But with the premise of a global solution to the climate change problem, shouldn't more "intelligent" experts of major countries actively negotiate and reach consensus related to contradictions, seeking a win-win result, instead of treating each other unjustly and stalling negotiations? Afterall, in today's world of globalisation, "losses" of any country will more or less be transferred to other countries. It is rare to see businesses wanting net profits for themselves while wanting others to have net losses.

关于生物多样性会议像极了气候变化谈判所面临的问题。从广义的角度看，这是全球公共治理问题走到了一个坎儿，原来自然形成的各自为战、竞争与合作不得不重新人为的整合，不顾彼此的发展将带来共同的灾难。

In regards to the biodiversity conference, it is very much like the problems the climate change negotiations faced. From a broader perspective, this issue of worldwide public administration has reached a difficult juncture. We must once again make an effort to integrate what was the natural formation of fighting one's own battle, competition and cooperation. It will only bring disasters if we progress regardless of each other's development.