中美两国领导人整日讨论减少温室气体排放以应对全球变暖，却对气候变化的罪魁祸首-过度消费，只字不提。

奢靡的生活方式，浮夸的炫富行为对二氧化碳的大量排放难辞其咎。不仅是在北京、上海，即使是在中国西南部的二三线城市，购物街和夜店门口随处可见宾利、玛莎拉蒂和宝马这样的豪华车。

对汽车的迷恋加速了对自然资源的消耗，污染空气，导致全球气温的上升。中国共产党政府应采取以下步骤：1）控制道路上的车辆总数；2）提高废气排放标准（包括随处可见的大巴车和卡车排放的黑烟）。

把小汽车当做彰显社会身份和个人成功与否的标志，这种“大跃进”式的状况必须得到克服。回想起文革时期宣传魔力的强大，政府也完全有能力教育大众认识到过度消费对外部环境带来的影响。自行车和地铁万岁！

China and US leaders talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and guarding against global warming but fail to mention the main culprit of climate change; the culture of conspicuous consumption.

Lavish lifestyles and ostentatious displays of wealth are responsible for a huge portion of carbon dioxide emissions. Bentley Mazaratti and BMW luxury cars line shopping districts and nightclubs not only in Beijing and Shanghai but also throughout tier II and tier III cities in the southwest.

Automobile fetish is a force that is driving the depletion of natural resources, fouling the air and warming global temperatures. The CCP government needs to step in to a) regulate the amount of cars on the road as well as b) improving exhaust emission standards (this includes the ubiquitous black plumes of smoke from buses and trucks).

The "Great Leap Forward" is to overcome the position that automobiles have as landmarks of social status and personal success. Given the propaganda wizardry of the Cultural Revolution there's no reason why we can't see the government educating the public on the environmental externalities of conspicuous consumption. Long live the bike and metro!

在生态经济学的领域里，把微观经济学的原理用在雨林资源上从长远的环境保护这个角度来说至关重要。Gund研究院[http://www.uvm.edu/giee/]对于把经济和环境的相关理论融为一体，并创建出保护雨林的可持续方法有一套整体的理论。

碳排放给碳殖民主义创造出了一个成熟的氛围。因为这允许了污染最大国在减少自己所应承受的压力的同时，还从第三世界国家中诈骗碳额度。所以碳减排在这些国家基本上不存在，它们要成为接受惩罚的主要国家。

现在有一个全新的看法：如果中国态度非常坚决地在出口成本中把环境外部性这个成本也加上会带来什么样的结果。这会带来很大一笔可以用来保护自然资源的资金。但是这也会给现在的全球资本主义框架带来巨大的变化，而且跨国企业和那些污染非常大的工厂的盈利将会大大减少！

Implementing microeconomic principles to rainforest resources as seen in the the field of "ecological economics" is crucial for long-term environmental preservation. The GUND institute [http://www.uvm.edu/giee/] takes a holistic outlook on incorporating economic and environmental principles to forge sustainable solutions on rainforest preservation.

The "Carbon Trading" plan creates an environment ripe for "Carbon Colonialism", allowing top polluting countries to lever their weight and swindle credits from third world economies. Thus little if any reduction of carbon emissions would actually take place in the countries that are the prime culprits of climate change.

Here's a radical idea: What if China were to take a firm stance to incorporate the costs of environmental externalities on their exports. This would yield a huge sum of money that could be allocated for natural resource preservation. However such scheme would radially alter the current framework of global capitalism, multi-national corporations and polluting factories would have to take huge cuts in their bottom line!

可悲的是，这篇文章和“癌症村“的流行没有引起足够的轰动。在过去的多于25年里，农村的贫困人群和自然环境承担了中国的经济崛起带来的毒害甚大的负担。由于人民是不能公开抗议工业污染或腐败（那些确实去北京吐苦水的通常都进了“黑监狱“）任何形式的社会公正都似乎模棱两可。没有理由，一个举办奥运会和世博会的国家竟然没有严格的环境法和准则！

Sadly this article and the prevalence of "cancer villages" did not come across as shocking. Over the past 25+ years the rural poor and the environment have carried the toxic burden of China's great economic rise. Given the fact that the people are not allowed to publicly protest against industrial pollution or corruption ( those that do go to Beijing to air their grievances often wind up in "black jails") any sort of social justice seems elusive. There is no reason that a country that hosted both the Olympics and the World EXPO does not have a stringent code of environmental law!

Yes perhaps the corporations would "pick up shop" and relocate to Indonesia, Vietnam or the Philippines. The whole global economic system would have to address environmental externalities, and given their track records on human rights, I don't have great faith in the WTO or IMF to make such change.

What really needs to be done is for the people of the world (Not the globalized mechanisms of free trade) to democratically ratify a global environmental law. Sure it sounds far-fetched, but think how far we've come on discussions of these issues. CD is a good example, whether I'm in Chengdu or Chicago, I can chime in on contemporary environmental debates. A bi-lingual forum on env. issues is great but a polyglot extension could really get the creative juices flowing!

没错，但也许公司将转身把在亚马将逊的生意打包，迁移到印尼，越南，或者菲律宾。整个全球经济体系必燃会强调环境的外部经济性。看看人权的发展纪录，对于世界贸易组织或国际货币基金组织促进环境问题的改变，我没有什么信心。

真正需要为世界做的是，不是自由贸易的全球化机制，而是在民主的基础上批准一个全球性的环境法。当然这听起来很牵强，但想象一下我们对这些问题的探讨已经有多深入。中外对话就是一个很好的例子，不管我在成都或芝加哥，我都可以参与当时的环境讨论。一个双语论坛对于解决环境问题无疑是伟大的，但如果能扩展成为一个多语种的论坛，创意之流一定会源源不断！

听到环保局对环境状况的询问就这么轻而易举的打发了，我感到十分心烦。Amy Sim 写道：“环保局给出的之所以‘无法透露’的原因通常都很简单，类似于“不方便透露”，“很难透露”，“可能会被媒体大肆渲染”等，就是没有一条是参照信息公开披露声明条例中提到的例外情况或对公共利益的考虑。
让环保局去向化工公司和工厂索要数据就像是反战人士向五角大楼企求机密一般！ 为什么他们要跟给他们制造麻烦的人合作呢？ 当然，环保法规将予以公布，我们必须认真对待那些危害环境和人类社会的非法活动， 那些罪行也必须受到追究。但是，如果权力已经在罪人的手中，他们怎么会把权力交给别人呢？

I was upsetting to hear how easily the EPB's were dismissed when they made environmental inquiries. Amy Sim writes, "The reasons given by the EPBs for non-disclosure were usually very brief, such as “inconvenient to disclose”, “difficult to disclose” and “can be easily sensationalised by the media”, without reference to the exception for disclosure stated in the OGI Regulations or considerations of public interest."

Having the EPB's ask for data from Chemical companies and factories is like peace activists pleading for Pentagon secrets! Why would they cooperate with someone they know is going to make trouble for them? Of course proof of environmental regulations will be publicized, illegal activity that dangers the environment and human society must be taken seriously and those guilty of such offenses need to be held accountable. But if the ball is in the culprits court, why would they make the pass?

@ gaidee 人民描述的腐败和环保罪行是需要的数据！