Does it make any difference to the climate change because China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many countries are not going to stop burning coal, natural gas and oil for hundreds years? The green energy makes China richer and the US poorer.

中国、印度、俄罗斯、沙特阿拉伯、伊朗和许多国家几百年内都不会停止使用煤炭、天然气和石油，这对气候变化有什么影响吗？绿色能源会让中国更富有，让美国更贫穷。

以下是Quora网友的评论：

Done with the Bullshit?

Converting to greener energy jobs increases the income base of many of our workers that are under-employed.

Reducing green energy will reduce the net temperature gain of our atmosphere and oceans. This will result in less sea level rise. Lower sea level means less coastal erosion and loss of habitat for both humans and other animals.

转向绿色能源工作增加了许多未充分就业的工人的收入。

减少绿色能源能减少大气和海洋的净温度的升高。能延缓海平面的上升，意味着减少海岸侵蚀和人类和其他动物栖息地的丧失。

Linda Foss

Of course, it makes a difference.

And yes, China is going to make a lot of money because they spent the last decade investing in the technology of the future. Unlike the United States, thanks to republicans that not only blocked all efforts for investment, the blocked all efforts on improved efficiency making the U.S. the most energy wasting country on the planet.

当然有影响啦。

是的，中国能赚很多钱，因为过去十年里他们一直投资研发未来科技。和美国不同的是，共和党不仅阻拦投资，还阻挠所有提高效率的努力，美国因此成了地球上能源浪费现象最严重的国家。

Ken Towe

The Chinese understand that lowering CO2 emissions takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures but does have a strong negative effect on energy security. The US does not seem to understand that. Without fuels for all of the conventional transportation required to make the transition to renewables and EV transportation the US will be very insecure. The Chinese are taking steps to ensure energy security. The US is not.

中国人明白，降低二氧化碳排放并不会让大气中的二氧化碳含量降低，但会对能源安全产生强烈的负面影响。美国似乎并不理解这一点。如果没有传统交通工具所需的燃料，在向可再生能源和电动汽车过渡期间，美国会很危险。中国正在采取措施确保能源安全。但美国并没有。

Bruce P. Douglas

Yes, it does make a significant difference to the climate change if countries like China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others continue to burn fossil fuels for hundreds of years. Fossil fuels, when burned, release carbon dioxde and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The continued use of fossil fuels at high levels could result in devastating consequences, such as more frequent and severe weather events, rising sea levels, and loss of biodiversity.

是的，如果未来几个世纪中国、印度、俄罗斯、沙特阿拉伯、伊朗和其他国家继续燃烧化石燃料，确实会对气候变化产生重大影响。燃烧化石燃料会向大气中释放二氧化碳和其他温室气体，导致全球变暖、气候发生变化。继续大量使用化石燃料可能会导致毁灭性的后果，比如更加频繁和恶劣的天气事件，海平面上升和生物多样性的丧失。

However, it's important to note that many of these countries are also investing in renewable energy and taking steps to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. For example, China is the world's largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines, and has made significant progress in transitioning to cleaner energy sources. India has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, and Russia has announced plans to increase its use of nuclear power.

但值得注意的是，这些国家中有不少都在投资可再生能源，并采取措施减少对化石燃料的依赖。例如，中国是世界上最大的太阳能电池板和风力涡轮机生产国，在向清洁能源过渡方面取得了重大进展。印度为可再生能源制定了雄心勃勃的目标，俄罗斯也宣布了增加核能使用的计划。

Regarding the statement that green energy makes China richer and the US poorer, it's important to recognize that the transition to renewable energy can have economic benefits for all countries. Investing in renewable energy can create jobs, promote innovation and technological advancement, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Additionally, the economic costs of climate change, such as damage to infrastructure, agriculture, and health, can be far greater than the costs of transitioning to renewable energy.

至于绿色能源会使中国更富有、美国更贫穷的说法，关键是要认识到向可再生能源过渡可以给所有国家带来经济方面的好处。投资可再生能源可以创造就业机会，促进创新和技术进步，减少对进口石油的依赖。此外，气候变化的经济成本，如对基础设施、农业和健康的破坏，可能远远大于向可再生能源过渡的成本。

Imran Hamza

Just to open your eyes a little bit, US nuts 4.2 billion gallons of diesel on railways every year, it have electrified railway of 0.92%, where as China has 62% electrified and India has 85% electrified.

Before you point fingers at others you should look at your own country and it’s pollution.

Most of the pollution was done by the west, Easter countries were sustainable long before the word “sustainable” exsted.

睁大你的眼睛吧，每年美国铁路要耗费42亿加仑柴油，铁路电气化率仅为0.92%，而中国电气化率为62%，印度电气化率为85%。

在指责别人之前，你应该先检视一下自己的国家，你们这才是污染。

大部分污染都是由西方国家造成的，在“可持续”这个词出现之前，东方国家就已经实现可持续发展了。

Joseph Boyle

Related

As Trump has reversed the USA’s actions on climate change, why should countries like China and India compromise their development by protecting the environment?

Most American efforts are from state and local governments, businesses, and people, not the federal government.

The USA actually achieved the Kyoto Protocol reduction targets, in spite of the US Senate not having reached the 2/3 support needed to ratify the treaty.

既然特朗普对美国在气候变化问题上的行动出尔反尔，中国和印度等国为什么必须为了保护环境而牺牲自己的发展呢？

大多数美国人的努力是来自各州和各地方政府、企业和人民，而非联邦政府。

实际上美国已经实现了《京都议定书》的减排目标，但美国参议院尚未获得批准该条约所需的2/3席位的支持。

Alan Morgan

There has been and still is far too much emphasis on global warming which is BS as the weather is seasonal and cycles every few decades, too many people are listening to all of the green energy policy maniacs ideology which is ridiculous?

全球变暖问题一直被夸大，这都是胡扯，天气是季节性的，每几十年就会周期发作一次，太多人被绿色能源政策疯子的意识形态左右了，太荒谬了吧？

Elijah Williams

Related

Why, with the draconian measures proposed by climate change folks, don't we just plant more trees to absorb the excess carbon? The draconian measures will never be implemented, especially in China, India and Russia?

Planting more trees is just one of the many options on the table. However, there is so much carbon to deal with that afforestation alone isn’t enough if you want to keep warming below 2 degrees celsius. At least if you don’t want to starve to death because we replaced all our farms with forests.

既然气候变化人士提出了这么严厉的措施，我们为什么不多种点树来吸收多余的碳呢？严厉的措施是无法实施的吧，尤其是在中国、印度和俄罗斯这些国家？

多种树是显而易见的选择之一。但如果要处理这么多碳，把升温控制在2摄氏度以内，光靠植树造林是不够的。起码不会因为我们把所有农场都改造成森林而把我们自己饿死。

There are a number of different “natural” solutions that involve land management practices, but even those can only do so much. Certainly planting more trees is generally a good idea and there are plenty of benefits beyond just carbons sequestration. However, realistically they can only take in a finite amount of carbon in a given amount of time and ultimately we have to reduce what we are putting out if any progress is to be made.

有许多不同的涉及土地管理实践的“自然”解决方案，但也仅此而已了。当然，植树造林是个好主意，除了碳封存之外还有很多好处。但实际上，树木在一段时间内只能吸收有限的碳，我们还是必须减少碳排放量才是解决之道。

Alesha Harrison

Related

Why should the US take climate change seriously when China, Russia, and India produce almost three times the carbon outputs as us and won’t agree to any regulation?

The problem with those figures is that it doesn't tell the real story. China produces seven times as much steel that the U.S., and it’s foundry steel, not forged. Foundry steel is steel made from ore, coke and lime. Almost all the steel produced in the U.S. is from forges, from car bodies and cut up aircraft carrier, so we don’t produce all the gasses that foundry steel does. China makes all theirs from Ore, Coal and Lime which produces all sorts of gasses we won’t talk about here. There in lies the difference and it’s something the leadership will have to work through.

中国、俄罗斯和印度的碳排放量几乎是美国的三倍，而且拒绝任何监管，美国为什么要认真对待气候变化？

这些数字的问题在于，它本身并不反映真实情况。中国的钢铁产量是美国的七倍，而且是铸造钢，而不是锻造钢。铸造钢是用矿石、焦炭和石灰制成的钢。而美国几乎所有钢铁都来自锻造、切割汽车车身和航空母舰，所以我们不会排放铸造钢铁时产生的所有气体。中国用矿石、煤和石灰生产铸造钢时产生了各种气体，我们在这里就不讨论了。这就是区别所在，这是领导层必须解决的问题。

W Horn

Sorry what you say is ridiculous, you need to do your homework China is the World leader in the production of solar panels. China is currently installing more offshore wind turbines that any other country in the world. China is the World leader in the production of electric cars & Chinese drivers own more electric cars than any other country. Top brands like Toyota & Honda have their cars made in China as do Tesla & Volvo. The world's leader in battery production is China. Why do you think that China is any worse than the “USA” which isn't doing much of the above?

我很遗憾，你说的话实在荒谬，你得自己做做功课了。中国是世界太阳能电池板生产的领导者。中国目前已安装的海上风力涡轮机比任何国家都要多。中国是全球电动汽车制造的领军者，中国售出的电动汽车比其他国家都要多。丰田和本田等顶级品牌的汽车都是在中国制造的，特斯拉和沃尔沃也是如此。全世界电池生产的领导者是中国。为什么你认为中国比“美国”差呢，“美国”在上述这几个方面的表现并不突出。

Kenneth Lane

Human activities have no discernable impact on our planet’s climate as we do not have the capability to change the Sun’s energy output, or alter the Earth’s irregular orbit around the Sun, or adjust myriad of other climate driving forces (planetary, lunar, solar, celestial) whose interactions determine the climate we experience.

人类活动对地球气候没有明显的影响，因为我们无力改变太阳的能量输出，无法改变地球围绕太阳的不规则轨道运转，也无法调整其他无数个影响气候的因素 (行星、月球、太阳、天体)，这些因素的相互作用共同决定了地球的气候。

Vincent Maldia

Related

Is it true China and India increased (and continue to increase) their usage of fossil fuels and the number of their coal power plants, after they joined the Paris Climate Accord? If yes, why?

Well any growing economy needs electricity/energy. Not just any electricity/energy, it has to be reliable, to be available when you need it

This is how much electrical production (since it is in watt hours, its not just nameplate capacity, it is actual electrical production) increased in 2018–2021 in china, divided by source

中国和印度加入《巴黎气候协定》后，化石燃料的使用量和燃煤电厂的数量真的增加了(并将继续增加)吗？如果是的话，为什么呢？

发展中的经济体都需要电力/能源。不是随便哪种电力/能源，而是必须可靠的，需要时马上可以用上的。

这是中国2018-2021年增加的发电量（因为是以瓦时为单位，它不仅仅是标示容量，也是实际发电量），按来源划分。

‘Thermal’ power generation includes coal, gas, oil, and biomass. Probably almost all fossil fuels

2020 was a pandemic year so expect any values to be atypical (see india below for an example)

In india it is very similar

“热力”发电包括煤、天然气、石油和生物质能燃料。可能涵盖了几乎所有的化石燃料。

2020年发生了疫情，所以数值会出现失真（参见下面印度的例子）

在印度，情况非常相似

There is a slower than expected relative growth of renewables in non wealthy countries such as India and Africa in general. Relative to the growth of fossil fuels. This usually means there is some problem. It could be cost, and that includes total cost including the “add ons” that are needed such as storage or overbuilding, or transmission line upgrades, i.e. their claims of low cost are not the whole story. Or maybe it could be:

在印度和非洲等贫困国家，相对于化石燃料的增长，可再生能源的相对增长总体上低于预期。这通常意味着确实存在一些问题。这可能是成本，包括总成本，包括所需的“附加成本”，如储存或过度建设，或输电线路升级，所以他们所谓的低成本只是冰山一角。或者可能是：

For poor countries, there are some things that are ranked higher than being environmentally friendly. Such as cost, specially total cost, and reliability.

对于贫困国家来说，有些事情比环保更重要。例如成本，特别是总成本和稳定性。