按这篇文章题目的意思，殖民主义是个贬义词，反过来也就是说中国的行为是好的。大多数殖民地都在我们出生之前就独立了。他们跟过去的联系（如负债或转向原材料出口）都与现在所形成的联系是相似的。但那些联系倾向于与这些国家的统治者有直接关系，而统治者的利益又往往跟民众的相去甚远。

文章提到中水电修建的麦洛维大坝工程创造了1.6万个职位，看起来像是中国援助政策的新例。但当工程结束后，这个工程不但会导致这1.6万人失业，而且大坝所造成的社会和环境影响将使其他捐献国家却步。大坝工程当然也在苏丹进行，而苏丹总统最近还被一个国际刑事法庭起诉。

但是，如果把责难都怪到中国头上也于事无补，因为中国国有企业在苏丹制造的石油并不是销往中国，而是在全球范围内交易。

更常见的贸易模式是一些以贪污、暴政为特点的国家出口（不管是民企或是中国大企业）林木、鱼以及矿产到中国市场进行加工，而后出口或进行本土终端销售。而从中国进口这些加工产品的国家，无法直接获取原材料，因此都是直接从中国进口的伪君子。

Given its title, this article seeks to imply that colonialism was bad and that therefore Chinese initiatives are good. Most colonies have been independent since before most of us were born. Any links with their past (e.g. debt and an orientation to the export of raw material) are very similar to those which are again being forged. However, those links tend to be direct with the rulers of the countries concerned – whose interests all too often differ fundamentally from those of the people.

The article cites the 16,000 local jobs which were created by the construction of the Merowe hydro-electric project – a project which seems to epitomise China’s aid strategy. Not only did the project make most of those 16,000 people unemployed when construction was completed but the social and environmental impact of the project is such that no other donor country would support it. The project is of course also in Sudan, whose president has been indicted by an international criminal court.

However, it would be unhelpful to cast all the blame on China – much of the oil which Chinese state-owned enterprises produce in Sudan is not imported into China but sold directly in the global market.

The more usual pattern of trade is for timber, fish and minerals from countries whose governments are characterised by corruption and brutality to be supplied (whether by family-owned or larger Chinese enterprises) to markets in China for processing and either export of local end-use. The countries which import those processed exports would be unable to gain access to those supplies – and are therefore hypocrites in importing indirectly via China.

考虑到中国每单位GDP减少能源消耗的政策，人们可能会问为什么那些不适于缓解气候变化的建筑——隔热不好或者低使用寿命——仍在被建。建筑的生命周期会产生大量碳足迹——从建设、居住到拆除。

尽管政策制定者自2008/9年较小的全球衰退起一直追求中国经济的通货再膨胀时， 应该已经预见到目前的建筑泡沫，但他们一直没有计划这个。

这显然是中央政府说一套地方政府做一套的又一个案例。

Given China's policy of reducing energy consumption per unit of GDP, one might ask why buildings, which are unsuitable for the sort of evolution essential to mitigate climate change - poorly insulated or which have a short life span - are still being built. The life cycle of buildings tends to have a particularly large carbon footprint - from construction and habitation, to demolition.

Although the current building bubble should have been foreseen by policy makers when seeking to reflate China's economy since the minor global recession of 2008/9, it would not have been planned.

This seems to be another example of the central government saying one thing and the local government doing another.

如果文章的分析是基于汽车能源的直接化石燃料向间接化石燃料（如电力）的转变，那么：
1）锂和稀土——目前电池和转换器里被使用的——其实用性很可能成为根本的制约（这种转化政策目光短浅，就像是从油锅跳进了火坑），同样在政治上也存在敏感性；
2）大多数电动自行车的发电来源依然主要依赖于化石燃料（以及高风险、高代价的核燃料），无论在中国还是欧盟；并且
3）碳足迹和其他制造业污染物以及电动汽车的处理（尤其与传统化石燃料能源汽车日益增长的使用寿命相比），还有可能的强制性汽车限速都应该被考虑在内。

If the analysis depends on a switch from direct fossil fuel as the energy source for vehicles to indirect fossil fuel (i.e electricity) then:
1] the availability of lithium and rare earths - currently used in batteries and transformers - is likely to be a fundamental constraint (the policy to switch is short-sighted, "out of the frying pan into the fire") and politically sensitive;
2] the source of electricity for most electric vehicles' energy in both China and the EU will remain predominantly fossil fuel (and - high risk, high cost - nuclear); and
3] the footprint of carbon and other pollutants associated with the manufacture and disposal of electric vehicles (especially when compared with increasing the life of vehicles powered directly by fossil fuel) and the likely mandatory reduction in vehicle speed should also be taken into account.

大多数评论家忽略了关于气候公约的一点，就是我们必须大幅度减少消费者驱动的碳排放量。这对个体消费者来说毫无损失。

考虑到发展共同体、气候变化界（两者应该是同样的）时，要牢记前者在实现千年发展目标、降低人均GDP增长国家的基尼系数（穷人相对来说是变得更穷）等问题上的失败，而GDP的增长（发展共同体对此赞誉）很大程度上归功于造成目前气候变化的不可持续经济增长。

The point which most commentators neglect concerning the UNFCC is that we must greatly reduce consumer-driven emissions of carbon. This does not cost individual consumers anything.

When considering the advice of the development community, the climate change community (the two ought to be identical) should bear in mind the failure of the former to deliver on the Millennium Development Goals, reduce gini-coefficients (the poor are becoming relatively poorer) in countries whose GDP per capita is increasing, and that that GDP increase (applauded by the development community) is largely attributable to just the sort of unsustainable economic growth which is causing climate change.

对于气候适应的商讨应该不是重点。气候变化越被削减（我们越多减少碳足迹），气候适应需要也越少。气候适应就是砸钱的说法也很虚伪。那些已经受气候变化造成的苦更愿意我们自己减排。另外，大部分的资金也不能到达受灾民众手中，而且他们对气候变化有非常少的责任。
我们这些碳罪恶的人必须减少及时享乐，更多地为碳无辜的人着想。碳罪恶的国家，那些所谓的目前和历史上的温室气体排放元凶，包括中国，印度，美国和日本，（他们都有庞大的贫穷人口），不能作为气候适应资金的资助对象了，直到碳无辜国家获得资金保证来对包括穷人在内的所有居民的气候适应。
如果在受灾国气温翻倍，UNFCCC针对气候适应的讨论将一无是处。

Negotiations on adaptation should be the lowest priority. The more climate change is mitigated (/ the more we reduce our carbon footprint), the less adaptation will be necessary. It is disingenuous to suggest that adaptation depends on handing out lots of money. The people whose livelihoods and land is already suffering from climate change would much prefer us to reduce our carbon. Further, much of any funding will not reach the people most affected by climate change and, importantly, most of these have contributed least to it.

We the carbon-guilty should think less about immediate gratification and more about the carbon-innocent. Carbon-guilty countries – defined as the leading current and past emitters of greenhouse gases, from China and India to the USA and Japan (all of which have large populations of poor people) should not be eligible for adaptation funding until carbon-innocent countries have embarked, with guaranteed funding, on adaptation strategies focussed not only on their poor, but also on their habitats.

There will be of little value if any UNFCCC discussion on how to achieve such levels of adaptation when, within this century, temperatures have risen by double.