重要的问题是，为了降低温室气体，穷人必须要做多大的牺牲。在美国，许多穷人需要开车上班，所以碳排放税收会直接降低他们的净收入。同样也会提高他们家里的暖气和其他生活必需的成本。

这就是为什么提高能源效率如此至关重要，尤其是在不增加成本的情况下。这也就是为什么政府必须规范效率。这方面中国政府采取了一些重要的措施，而加州在美国属于领先，但是正如艾林琳女士指出，在经济糟糕、失业率高的情况下，这些措施难以持续。

美国大约只有15%的人口（每六个里面只有一个）生活在年收入低于1万美元的贫困线下。艾林琳女士所说的“月光族”其实很多收入远高于贫困线。中国的人均年收入（大约7000美元一年）低于美国的贫困线，而且大部分中国家庭的收入都少于这个数字。

The important question is how much poor people would need to sacrifice in order to reduce greenhouse gases. In America, many poor people need to drive cars to get to work, so a carbon tax would reduce their net income. It would also raise the cost of home heating and other basic needs.

This is why improved energy efficiency is so important, particularly if it can be done without increasing the cost. This is why government needs to regulate efficiency, and the government of China has taken some important steps. The state of California has been a leader in the United States although, as Ms Ellis notes, that is harder to sustain when the economy is bad and unemployment is high.

Only about 15% of the US population (one in 6) lives below the poverty line of about $10 thousand per year. Ms. Ellis' reference to "living paycheck to paycheck" applies to many people whose income is well above the poverty line. The average income per person in China (about $7 thousand) is below the US poverty line, and the majority of Chinese households earn less than that.

这里有太多讽刺了。其一，这些所谓的“社会主义”的奇迹是建立在金融剩余的基础上的，这种剩余是由向富有的市场经济体出口创造的。你大可以称这是一个自由贸易的奇迹，在这样的条件下，即使中国的经济体和经济政策不像西方国家那样完全由市场驱动，他们也会放任中国进入他们的市场。这并不是说中国还不能够创造奇迹，只是这种奇迹是务实的而不是理想化的。而且，在创造经济剩余以帮助中国未来的融资方面，西方国家是值得推崇的。他们依靠市场经济政策实现了这些成果，而非社会主义。

简单地把中国经济体归结为“社会主义”是错误的，在中国，经济增长是由公民的企业家精神和国内外的私人投资带来的。同样的，简单地把西方国家经济体归结为“资本主义”也是错误的，许多西方国家的州政府给居民提供的福利远比中国现在能够提供的要多得多。维尔切先生，让我们现实一点吧!

There are many ironies here. One is that these miracles of "socialism" are built on financial surpluses created by exporting to wealthy market led economies. One could more easily say it is a miracle of free trade, which western countries were willing to allow China to participate in even when its economy and economic policies were less market driven than theirs. This isn't to say that China hasn't accomplished miracles, but it has done that through pragmatism rather than ideology. And the west deserves credit for creating the economic surpluses that are helping to finance these investments in China's future. They did that through market led economic policies, not socialism.

It's a mistake to simplistically categorize China's economy as "socialist," where growth has been driven by its citizens' entrepreneurial spirit and by private investment, both domestic and foreign. It's just as much a mistake to simplistically call western economies "capitalist," where the state in many western countries provides far more generous services to its citizens than China currently does. Let's get real, Mr. Vitchek.

不管中国的风能特殊基金是否违背了世界贸易组织的规定，这看上去像是中国回应国际社会要求的刺激经济关键领域的又一个例子。有一个方法绝对不会违背世界贸易组的规定，就是补贴国内风能设备的需求（不管是哪里制造的）。那样的话，就不会有关于补贴真实目的的误解了。

Whether or not China's special fund for wind power violates WTO commitments, it seems to be another example of China relying on foreign demand to stimulate a key sector of its economy. An alternative approach, which definitely would not violate the WTO, would be to subsidize domestic demand for wind power equipment (regardless of where it is made). That way, there could be no misunderstanding as to the true purposes of the subsidy.