文章 Articles

A new approach at Copenhagen (1)

To classify a nation as “developing” or “developed” is insufficient to decide its climate-change responsibilities. In the first segment of a three-part essay for chinadialogue, leading economist Hu Angang explains the alternative.

Article image

[Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative]

The current classification of nations as either developed or developing does not reflect reality and is preventing agreement on an emissions reduction scheme that is acceptable to all nations. This article, which will be published in three parts, proposes two new principles to be used for classification during emissions reduction processes. First, nations should be assigned to one of four categories according to their Human Development Index (HDI) ranking, rather than classed as simply developed or developing. Second, major greenhouse-gas producers should be made to bear greater responsibility for emissions reduction. These principles can help produce binding targets for emissions reductions worldwide. The paper then calculates the emissions reductions China should make, and proposes a “road map” for use within China, based on provincial net carbon sources and HDI figures. The paper holds that an emissions reduction commitment by China will help promote a global consensus on climate change.

A new classification

The future of humanity is at stake. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December is our last chance to save the planet, and there is the possibility of failure. If emissions targets and responsibilities are not set, we will all suffer the consequences -- and China is no exception. The world’s most populous nation, and one of its geographically largest, is environmentally vulnerable. China could benefit most from global public goods, but it also has the most to lose from climate change.

Despite living in an ever-closer global village, international organisations and domestic politicians have failed to find a plan they can agree on. Differing national demands and interests mean consensus is elusive. But as the Copenhagen meeting approaches, the chances of failure rise – and failure there will be a failure for humanity. 

Identifying a universally acceptable international climate-change policy and emissions reduction proposal before Copenhagen is essential. This scheme will need to redefine developing and developed nations and establish a dynamic framework within which future obligations will be set. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) divides nations into two types, developed or developing, with different policies for each. But this is a very crude categorisation. Defining developed nations is relatively clear: for example, we can take the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). But over 100 nations are described as “developing”. Emissions reduction obligations fall on the shoulders of a small number of developed nations; this is of no benefit for cutting global emissions. Meanwhile, the lack of action from developing nations gives some developed countries a pretext to refuse to reduce their own emissions.  

Therefore, we must recategorise countries by taking into account average greenhouse-gas emissions per capita, total greenhouse-gas emissions, historical and current responsibilities. We can use efficient and equitable principles to place each of the roughly 200 countries of the world into new categories, replacing the binary distinction of developed or developing. This will determine the emissions reduction contribution of major polluters in terms of their contribution to global emissions. To this end, this article has two proposals.

First, the binary distinction should be replaced according to the HDI, an index between 0 and 1 that ranks countries by their levels of development. I propose dividing countries into High HDI (above 0.8), Medium-high HDI (0.65 to 0.8), Medium-low HDI (0.5 to 0.65) and Low HDI (less than 0.5). The planet is thus divided into four sections.

The High HDI group contains 70 countries, with a total population of 1.6 billion. These nations would make major, non-conditional emissions cuts, as specified by the UN. Over time this group will expand. According to the Human Development Report 2005, published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), there were 57 nations in this group in 2003, with a total population of 1.21 billion, 19.2% of the global population. An increasing number of nations will become non-conditional emissions reducers.

The Medium-high HDI group (of which China is now a member) has a population of 2.44 billion, 37.41% of the world total. These nations would be second-tier emissions reducers: conditional reducers. Targets would be set according to the gap between the nation’s HDI figure and the 0.8 threshold; the smaller the distance, the greater the obligation. When the country enters the High HDI group, they become non-conditional reducers. In the case of China, the country's HDI in 2005 was 0.777. In 2010, it will reach 0.8, and China will then become a non-conditional reducer of greenhouse-gas emissions. A UN agency to monitor the actions and achievements of these two groups should be established.

The Medium-low and Low groups would not be obliged to reduce emissions, but voluntary reductions should be encouraged where possible.

Second, we must require greater emissions cuts from the biggest polluters. Currently the world’s 20 largest emitters account for 75% of total emissions. As the largest emitters, they should be the biggest reducers. And the greater their proportion of total emissions, the larger contribution they should make. Reduction quotas will be apportioned according to the negative externalities caused by global pollution: those with the highest emissions will bear a larger responsibility for reductions, and have higher targets to meet. Those 20 nations are headed by China and the United States, who account for 38.14% of global emissions. They are followed by Russia, India and Japan, each accounting for at least 4% of global emissions, and a total of 14.23%. A third group made up of the remaining 15 countries accounts for 22.89% of total emissions. Obligations will change in line with these proportions, and HDI figures will also be factored in. Fourteen of those countries are in the High HDI group, the non-conditional reducers of emissions. Five are in the Medium-high group, the conditional reducers. India alone falls into the Medium-low group, but as a major carbon polluter it should actively reduce its emissions. As it moves into the Medium-high group it will become one of the conditional reducers.

This HDI-based system could also be used to determine financing structures. High HDI nations would be major contributors of funds and technology; Low HDI countries would receive direct development assistance and free or low-cost technological assistance; Low-medium HDI nations would benefit from low-interest loans from international financial organisations and low-cost technological assistance; High-medium HDI countries would receive technological assistance. As the UNDP publishes HDI figures every year for all countries, they represent a simple and transparent basis for a global emissions reductions and the disbursement of economic aid.

These principles can be used to set binding targets. A nation’s emissions reduction targets will be determined by its stage of development, including its total emissions, average emissions per head and historical responsibilities. HDI is an excellent measure and should be used instead of GDP. Goals are also determined by contribution to overall historical and ongoing emissions. The 20 largest emitters have a direct impact on global targets and action, so their reduction targets and actual emissions will be linked. It is feasible to use these principles at the Copenhagen conference to determine a road map for emissions reductions by all nations until 2050, determining their obligations under a global emissions reduction agreement.

TOMORROW: Can China cut its greenhouse-gas emissions?


Hu Angang is one of China’s best-known economists. He is professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsinghua University and the director of the Centre for China Study, a leading policy think-tank. Hu has worked as the chief editor for China Studies Report, a circulated reference for senior officials.

Produced in association with:



Homepage image by Worldmapper - Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of Michigan)

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

气候变化谈判:阳春白雪VS.下里巴人

气候变化这个本来属于下里巴人的事,目前看来变成了阳春白雪,高高在上,普通老百姓明白的人没有几个。中国怀疑气候变化的人,我看不下99%。就连我的一个在西方念过书的好朋友也持这样的观点。一句话,这不是我们老百姓关心的事,我们也没有办法关心,因为大家都不明白嘛。
咱们中国的国情,大的面来说大家都知道,底子薄嘛,人均排放还很低,能把这么多人喂饱就很不错了,不信,把这些人放一部分到欧洲和美国去试试?反正都是为了我们的农民兄弟姐妹。实际上情况正好相反,就像我们中国这个穷国部分养活了美国,西方一样,是穷人在养活富人,而不是相反。可不能把这个顺序搞反了。坐在富丽堂皇的柏林会议室里的兄弟啊,别忘了中国8亿农民兄弟等着你们的好消息呢。

Climate Change Negotiation"'Yang chun bai xue' vs 'xia li ba ren'"

Originally,climate change is the business of the mass,namely "xia li ba ren" in acient Chinese,however,at the present time, it becomes 'yang chun bai xue' which means few common people are familiar with it.In China ,more than ninety-nine percentage is skeptical of climate change,even one of my best friends who have studied abroad in the west holds the same opinion.In one word,our common people needn't and have no idea to care about it,none of us understand it after all.
Our country's condition ,a weak economic foundation ,is konwn to all people in a broad sense,and per capita emmissions is low ,since it's awesome to feed such a large population .Should there be any doubts ,you can try to sustain these people in Europe or America.Anyway,it's for the benefit of peasants,our compatriots.Actually,the truth is completely the opposite,just as the poor China has been raising America,the underpriviledged is supporting the rich in the western world.We can never disrupt this order.The buddies sitting at the magnificent council chamber of Berlin,please do remember eight hundred million farmers in China is expecting your good news.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

我的观点

我们中国那么多的贫穷人口这个问题,我看短期内谁也解决不了,全移民到美国加拿大澳大利亚也没办法。解决不了的事我们就别浪费时间。我的观点是中国到2015年前,在2005年的基础上,每年减少排放增速20%,到2015年左右达到顶点,然后每年降低绝对排放大约2%,实现在2050年比2005年降低绝对排放量50-60%。
我们的政治体制决定了我们干事的效率比美国快,美国人辩论来辩论去,辩到后来,小布什拉倒不认账了。现在情况也差不多,奥巴马总统能走到多远,我很怀疑,美国国内虽然很支持,但是人家的承诺会和中国以及印度的表现挂钩。美国实现节能1吨煤,咱们中国多消耗2吨,有啥用?大气属于全人类,我们都是拴在一根绳上的蚂蚱,谁也逃不掉。再看取消超市免费塑料袋,这个绝对是我们国家制度优越性的一个典型的例子,一声令下,那个超市还敢免费提供?这在美国是不敢想的事,不辩论个三五年不会有任何结果。
问题是,我们出台这个政策要花的时间不一定比人家短,人家在明处辩论和游说,我们都是躲在会议室里张罗,谁也不知道。再说了,即便美国答应给你钱,你就一定能做到减排多少多少嘛?我给你钱,您能到月亮上去?我给你钱,你就能解决北京的交通问题?我给你一万亿,你能恢复我们的蓝天白云,碧水青山,白暨豚,扬子鳄和娃娃鱼?

My opinion

In the short term I can't see anyone being able to solve the problem of our China having such a large population of people living in poverty; everyone emigrating to America, Canada and Australia is not the solution. We should not waste time on things we cannot solve. My opinion is that on the basis of 2005, the rate of decrease in China's emissions will increase by 20% every year until 2015, it will peak at around 2015 and then emissions will decrease in absolute terms by around 2% every year and in 2050 this will achieve an absolute decrease in emissions of 50-60% compared to 2005. Our political system determines that our level of efficiency in doing things is higher than that of America; Americans debate left, right and centre and in the end, Bush Jnr left it at that and did not acknowledge what had been done. Now the situation is about the same, I have my doubts about how far President Obama will go, whether the promises will catch on and connect with China and India, although he does havea lot of support at home. America has achieved an energy saving of 1 ton of coal, if in China we consume 2 more tons, what's the use? The atmosphere belongs to all of humanity, we are all locusts fastened to a rope, no one can jump off. Also look at abolishing free plastic bags in supermarkets, this is an absolutely typical example of the superiority of the system in our country, the order is given and what supermarket dares to continue to provide free them for free? In America this would be unthinkable, without 3-5 years of debate there would be no result. The problem is, the time it took for us to come out with this policy was not necessarily shorter than anyone else, but they debate and canvass in the open, we hide in meeting rooms and take care of it and no one knows. Moreover, even if America responds by giving money, must you be able to reduce emissions by a certain amount? If I give you money, can you go to the moon? If I give you money, can you solve Beijing's transport problems? If I give you a trillion, can you get back our blue skies and white clouds, blue waters and green mountains, yangtze river dolphins, chinese alligators and giant salamanders?
(Translated by Jodie Gardiner)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

计划生育政策的得与失和气候变化

我觉得朋友们需要研究的是我们的计划生育或者“一家生一个”这个政策对我们的气候变化政策的参考价值。计划生育政策是我们国家有史以来开展的风险最大,规模最大,算上是世界第一的公共政策。你说计划生育政策涉及的范围多大?对我们国家影响多大?现在想来绝对是可怕的事情。放到如今,谁也不敢想,谁也不敢干。气候变化也是这样,你现在不干,等到你想干的时候,我敢肯定是心有余而力不足了。我总是想把气候变化和我们的计划生育政策相对比,并且现在看来,我们国家是世界上最有条件和经验开展这种全国性的运动的,只是目前的节能减排运动国家还不够重视。主要表现在人力资源不足。
我们现在每个地方都还有计生办,生个小孩还要有证明,否则你要花钱找地方落户口,不是不行,是要花代价。计划生育工作做不好,领导就会被一票否决。哪个领导敢生二胎的话,除非是偷偷摸摸的找二奶,否则那绝对是红线,碰不得。我小时候就亲眼看过村干部带人把超生人家的房子扒掉,把妇女拉到医院绝育。这是咱们中国的现实中不得以而为之的办法,我看如果是美国人来,也只有这么干。
想法是想法,现实是现实。但是,我们搞应对气候变化是个更加有科技含量的活,不是什么村干部,老书记带个头就行的,毕竟二氧化碳你看不见摸不着,不像孕妇挺着个肚子那么明显。不知道咱们中国总共有多少直接间接从事计划生育工作的人,把这个数字乘以2,再换成训练有素的专业人员,至少是大专毕业的吧,就知道我们中国开展这个工作有多难了,没人啊。反之,真需要那么多人的话,我看我们每年几百万大学生说不定还不够用呢。真是一举多得啊。

Gain & loss of family planning and climate changel

I think what we need to study is that our family planning or one child policy offers some good reference to climate change policy.Family planning policy has been the riskiest and the most extensive public policy in China's history,even claiming to be No. 1 in the world.Nobody can name how far it has reached,and how much it has influenced our country.All these just sound terrible even today.If put in nowadays,one might not be that bold to consider or even to do it.The same with climate change.If you retreat now,when you want to do someday later,only to find yourself lack of power to carry it out.I am always comparing climate change with our family planning policy,and judging from the current situation,our country is the most qualified and the most experienced to this kind of national campaign,but unfortunately those countries calling for energy-effiency and emission reduction don't take it seriously enough.Lack of labor force is the best evidence.We still have family control committee all around.You have to get a certificate for the child,otherwise you have to pay to register the residence.It works but it also costs.If the family planning is poorly executed,the officials would simply get vetoed.If any official dare have a second child,unless in extramarital affairs,he is forbidden to go against it.In my childhood,I witnessed some village officials attended by helpers run pulling down houses of those who had more children than planned,and dragging women to have sterilization operations in hospital.This is an reluctant but the only way for Chinese facing such a reality.I guess Americans would do the same thing when put in that situation.Ideas are only dieas,and the reality is always reality there.But we should tackle the climate change issues with more scientific techniques instead.No more satisfied with only village officials or the old secretary take the lead.CO2 is something out of your sight and touch after all,not like pregnant women's big belly.I have no idea how many people involved in the family planning work directly or indirectly in China.This number multiplied by 2,and that's th well-trained professionals,at least above college level,and then you may come to understand it's a task nearly impossible for China,being in a state extremely short of hands.On the other hand,even though we have millions of university students per year,it stil can not meet that tremendous demand.I have to say it would be a stone killing more than one bird!!
(translated by diaoshuhuan)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

看"世界节能之父"怎么说

论来论去,我们还是看看听听外国的高人怎么说的,毕竟这个话题还是西方发达国家首先开始搞的,我看我们需要谦虚地向别人学习,等到满师了,再到江湖上闯荡不迟。建议你们看看这个链接: http://www.carcu.org/html/xiehuigongzuo/2009/0407/771.html.

Listen to the "Father of World energy-saving"

After all, we'd better listen to the foreign experts since the issue is first put forward in western countries. I think we should learn from others and when we have learned enough staffs, it's still not too late to make progress. Recommend this link: http://www.carcu.org/html/xiehuigongzuo/2009/0407/771.html

Translated by Chen Guo

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

IPCC 和UNFCCC里有多少中国人

为了这些问题,我特地上了上网,察看我们在IFCC和UNFCCC里有多少我们中国的气候专家。结果没有出我所料,就是一个也没有。好像有一个在法律部工作的同志。我们是在讨论一个问题由别人提出,证据由别人测量,效果由别人说了算的事情。我们翻译消化吸收都来不及呢,怎么能把这个事情办好?就拿咱们轰轰烈烈开展的什么CDM项目来说,联合国认定的12家doe没有一家是我们中国的,减排量多少不是我们有能力和资格参与的事。但是,韩国有一家,日本有一家。我们是该人多的地方没人,不需要那么多人的地方人满为患。

How many Chinese in IPCC and UNFCCC?

For the questions above,I searched for the exact number of Chinese in IFCC and UNFCCC via the internet purposely.The outcome is no surprise,that none of Chinese are in either of them,except one working in the law department.We are discussing a problem raised by others.All the evidence has to be measured by others,and all the results have to be judged by others.We don't even have time to translate,digest and absorb,then how can we do it well?For instance,the CDM project which we launched with full devotion,China didn't even have any organization ranking among the 12 DOE recognized by UN.The volume of emission reduction isn't what we are capable or qualified to achieve.However,both of Korea and Japan have one among the list.In China,too few live in areas that ought to be populous while too many crowd in areas unable to bear a large population.
(translated by diaoshuhuan)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

农村的沼气利用,我们的制胜法宝

搞节能,尽管现在好像有些麻烦,实际上这个工作会很快进行下去。问题是我们的农村怎么办?这是中国的大问题,解决好农村的问题,不管是什么问题,我们政府需要解决的事情就完成了80%。在这我们别忘记了,几十年前我们在中国农村开展的大规模的沼气应用这件事。那时候(估计三十年前吧,我都忘记具体时间了)农村很多地方简直就是家家户户都在家后面挖个沼气池,把猪啊鸡啊人啊的大便小便到进去产气,再(主要)用于照明。现在我还记得我舅舅家那个特别亮的像汽灯样的沼气灯,很大,很长,外面还有专门的保护罩。可是搞了两年就没人关心了,我们现在是要电气化。当时还有人掉进去淹死的事。可是现在我们不同了,我们农村的生活水平提高了,不但可以照明,还可以用于烧饭烧菜,甚至可以用于取暖。如果改革了电力工业,我们可以建设小规模的以村庄为单元的沼气发电站,为当地提供廉价的电力,多余的上网发电卖钱。别忘了,沼气是比二氧化碳厉害17倍的温室气体!我们这有这条路可走,才能解决农村的减排问题,华山一条路。以前走过可是没走好,现在我们需要沿着这条路继续前进。好处我总结一下。1)提高农村的卫生环境,增进人民健康 2)提高农村人民生活水平 3)提高农村收入 4)减少我们农业排放量。你和我们农民说什么二氧化碳减排没用,你要告诉别人这样做的实实在在的好处,没好处,谁会作?

Utilizing the countryside's methane, our magic weapon to get the upper hand

Although saving energy seems to be an annoyance at present, in fact it is a job that can be carried out very quickly. The problem is, what can be done about our countryside? This is China's big problem - if the problems in the countryside are resolved, no matter what the problems are, then 80% of the issues that our government needs to solve will be dealt with. With this in mind, we must not forget the matter of large-scale practical applications for methane gas launched a few decades ago in the Chinese countryside. At that time (probably about 30 years ago, I forget exactly when), in many parts of the countryside just about every household dug a methane-generating pit behind the house, filling it with all kinds of excrement from pigs, chickens, people, etc., in order to produce gas which was then used for illumination. Today, I can still remember the amazingly bright methane lamp in my uncle's house, like a regular gas lamp. It was very big and long, and on the outside it had a specially-made protective cover. But after managing this for a couple years, nobody took an interest anymore and now we all want electrification. At that time, there was also the issue of people falling in and drowning. But it's not like that anymore, the living standards in our countryside have been improved. Not only is there illumination, electricity can also be used for cooking and even keeping warm. If the electric power industry is reformed, we can construct small-scale methane power stations in which the main unit is the village, and which provides low-priced electric power for the locality, the surplus of which can be sold for money online. Don't forget, methane is a greenhouse gas that is 17 times more devastating than carbon dioxide! We only have one route to follow which will solve the problem of reducing agricultural discharge, the Mount Hua route. In the past we took this route, but we didn't follow it well. Now we must follow this route and keep moving forward. I'll summarize the benefits below:

1) Improving the hygienic environment in the countryside, promoting the people's health.
2) Improving the standard of living among the people living in the countryside.
3) Increasing rural incomes.
4) Reducing the amount of our agricultural discharge.

It is useless to talk with our peasant farmers about things like carbon dioxide or discharge reduction, you have to tell them the concrete benefits of doing things this way. If there are no benefits, then who will be willing to do it?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

没有调查就没有发言权

不是只有作为政府代表团成员参加了气候变化谈判才有发言权,但是没有参加过气候变化谈判,不知道发达国家在说什么,不知道发展中国家在说什么,这种情况下提出的观点就是闭门造车。生命力如何就不言而喻了。
气候变化的所有谈判资料都是公开的,有最终的会议文件,也有ENB关于会议进程的详细报告。从谈气候公约时开始的会议就有。都是公开的,不收费。建议读读,读完了对提有意义的观点肯定有帮助。
最差的情况下,也应该读一读公约。这是全球应对气候变化问题的基础。包括美国、欧盟、日本、俄罗斯、澳大利亚等在内的各个国家都认可。没有读这些就提自认为高明的建议,就没有对话基础。如果愿意读一读京都议定书,可能会更好。
见识有限可以,需要加强学习。冷嘲热讽就不对了。

Without an inquiry there is no right to speak

It is not only the government representatives who took part in the climate change summit who have the right to speak, but also those who didn't participate. Those who didn't participate don't know what the developed countries are saying, nor what the developing countries are saying. In this situation, the proposed viewpoints are removed from reality. How can anything be understood if it's not said? All materials of climate change negotiations are public. The documents of this final summit also include ENB's detailed report on summit progress. It was there from the start of the summit discussing the climate change treaty. Everything is public, there is no charge for it. I suggest you read it, the meaningful viewpoints you get from reading it must help. In the worse case scenario, you should also read the treaty. This is the foundation of how the whole world deals with the climate change problem. It is endorsed by many countries including America, the European Union, Japan, Russia, Australia etc. Any who have not read these documents or proposed their own well-thought out suggestions have not discussed the basics. If they also agree to read the Kyoto Protocol, that may be even better. It is possible even with limited experience, you just need to study hard. Taunting is just not right.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

需要加强学习

很多国际主义者大谈中国应该减排,似乎很有道德优越感。多高尚呀。这太容易了。自己一方面享受着高排放带来的舒适生活,住着大房子、开着大排量的汽车。减排难不难,了解了解我们国内的节能工作后再说。减排难不难,可以从自己做起。中国目前人均CO2排放是4吨多。自己在国内属于什么消费水平,自己算算。美国技术先进不先进,资金实力雄厚不雄厚?看看美国的近几年的排放。欧盟呢?环境派呢。看看环境派的表现。看看欧盟除了东欧的几个国家由于经济下滑排放有较低之外,有几个国家的排放最近几年降了?有一两个降的,去分析分析原因,因为什么降了?英国前些年降了,是因为北海天然气大量替代煤炭。最近两年呢?中国想用天然气替代煤炭。世界上谁提供?大的漂亮的观点谁都会提,装高尚谁的会。讽刺政府谁都会。需要建设性的可行的建议,这远远不是一两句讥讽的话就可以解决的。说讥讽的话之前,先想想那些还在贫困线上挣扎的你的同胞,其中可能有一些是你的亲属。

The need to strengthen study

Many international doctrines say China must reduce emissions. Apparently they are feeling very morally superior- how noble. This is too easy. They live a comfortable life which brings high emissions- living in large houses and driving high-emission cars. Whether reducing emissions is difficult or not, please first understand our domestic energy conservation work before you say anything about it. Whether reducing emissions is difficult or not, we are able to do it off our own backs. In China the current per person average of CO2 emissions is more than 4 tons. We calculated this domestic consumption level ourselves. Whether American technology is advanced or not, is there enough funding for it? Look at America's emissions for the past few years. How about the European Union's? Look at environmental groups. Look at the performance of the environmental groups. Look at the European Union, with the exception of a few Eastern European countries who have had lower emissions due to economic decline. How many countries have reduced their emissions in the past few years? There have been one or two who have fallen, but if you go and analyse the reason, why have they have fallen? In the last few years England's emissions have fallen due to natural gas largely replacing coal use. And in the last two years? China has also thought to replace coal usage with natural gas. Who in the world will provide this? Anyone can raise this attractive opinion, anyone can pretend to be noble. Anyone can be sarcastic about the government. But before you ridicule, think of some feasible, constructive suggestions – none of this will be solved by a couple of sarcastic sentences. Before ridiculing, think first of those compatriots of yours who are struggling to live on a low-income, perhaps some of those are your relatives.

Translated by Nathalie Thorne

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回“没有调查就没有发言权”

说得对。领导总是对的,顺便问一下,气候司有几个人?听说只有五六个?咱们代表团总共有几个人?怎么构成的?

Reply to: "Without an inquiry there is no right to speak"

Rightly said. Leaders are always correct- by the way, how many people does the climate department have? I heard it was only 5 or 6? How many people are in our delegation altogether? How is it made up?

Translated by Nathalie Thorne

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

任何事情都有两面性

在中国流行的一元硬币有两面:一面有漂亮的花,另一面有数字1表示这个硬币的面值。同样地,气候变化的政策也有两面性。一方面是执行这一政策的成本,另一方面是我们可以从中享受到的物质上的利益,但这些是无法用准确的数字衡量。我们应当首先考虑成本是没有错的,但在此同时我们还应当考虑长期和短期内由于这一政策我们得到的回报。实现减排,例如通过提高能源效率,已经多次被证明是有利可图的。许多人不知道通过能越能源能挽救什么。每一个人都不得不回头看看1973年石油危机以后都发生了些什么,这一危机催生了能源节约的运动,而它又先后在80年代早期和大概2006年被引进到中国。人们被鼓励节约能源为了减少与石油相关的成本,并不是因为那时他们不得不考虑气候。是的今天我们不得不更加的关心气候但是我们不应当忘记一个事实....

本评论由陈丽英翻译

The two sides of one coin

The 1 yuan coin popular in China has 2 sides: one side has a nice flower and the other has the digit 1 indicating the monetary value of the coin. Similarly, the climate change policy has also 2 sides. And one is the cost to implement it and the other the monetary or financial benefits you can enjoy but without any exact numbers associated with it. Although it is true we have to look at the cost first, we must check the short term and long term economic return of that policy at the same time. And time and time again, it has proved to be economically profitable to reduce the emission, by improving the energy efficiency as an example. And many people here are ignorant of what to save by saving the energy. And one has to look back at what has happened after the first oil crisis in the year 1973 and which has spurred the birth of what is known today as energy conservation movement which was introduced into China in the early 80s and again in the year about 2006. People have the incentive to save energy to reduce the cost associated with the oil, not because we have to care about the climate at that time. Yeah, today we have to care more about climate but we should not forget the fact that...