A number of years ago, I spent some time in Africa with members of the Kenyan Wildlife Service whose mission was to protect endangered and protected wildlife from poachers. The job was hazardous; poachers were generally armed and willing to shoot. And the penalties, if the poachers were caught, were severe. But, the KWS rangers said, it wasn't a clear case of good guys versus the bad guys. Yes, the poaching was terrible. And the big money it offered didn't even go, in most cases, to the hunters themselves. They might make $200 for elephant tusks that their "employers" would turn around and sell on the global market for many, many times that amount. "But it's hard to make the case that we need to preserve the elephants," one of the rangers explained to me, "to a Masai tribesman who is so poor that $200 could make the difference between his 6-year-old son living or dying. He's not going to sacrifice his son to save some wild animal."

    No, of course not. No parent would. Part of the challenge, then, was to try to convince the tribesmen that the tourism the elephants would bring to the area would provide as much or more income, at far less risk, than poaching.

    It's a point that was highlighted earlier this week during Secretary of State HIllary Rodham Clinton's visit to India, when her upbeat comments about being partners with India in fighting global warming were countered, almost immediately, by Jairam Ramesh, India's environment and forests minister. The Indian minister said that India was not in a position to take on legally binding emission standards, and already had one of the lowest carbon emissions rates per capita, in the world.

    Roughly translated, Ramesh was saying, pointedly, that the U.S. could well talk about reducing emissions, because it already had a developed and basically well-fed society … a position it had attained because it didn't have to worry about carbon emissions as it developed. India, with a population of over 1 billion, a poverty rate （living on less than $1.25 a day） of somewhere around 40%, doesn't have that luxury. The rich folk can worry about saving the elephants; the poor have more urgent problems at hand. When most Indians can afford clean transportation, are well fed and safely above poverty levels, come talk to them about reducing emissions.

    It's a point echoed in "Mr. Gore, Your Solution to Global Warming is Wrong," a feature in the current issue of Esquire magazine. Written by Bjorn Lomborg, the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a professor at the Copenhagen Business School, the article offers an interesting perspective on the global warming debate. Or, rather, the global warming solution debate. Professor Lomborg does not believe that reducing carbon emissions will solve the problem, and argues that our focus on emission reduction is misplaced. In part because of the minor difference that approach is projected to have, over time, but also because of the punitive consequences of that approach for a large percentage of the world's population.

    Global warming may harm your grandchildren's chances of survival in sub-Saharan Africa 50 years from now, but if you don't use that poorly maintained, diesel-guzzling truck you somehow got lucky enough to have access to, your children may die next week. And rather than investing billions in reducing carbon emissions, you'd much prefer the powers that be invested in mosquito nets.

    When and how does that change? One way, according to Lomborg, is for the poor to become, well … less poor. "Once a country achieves a certain standard of living, with their kids healthy and educated, citizens invariably begin to shift their focus toward the environment, and pollution starts to fall," he notes -- a dynamic known as the "Kuznets curve."

    Consequently, Lomborg advocates a number of nutrition and economic initiatives that may not seem directly related to global warming, but could aid the effort by increasing the number of people with enough margin, or luxury, to care. Lomborg also argues that significant change needs to come from developing alternate fuel sources and eliminating the need for fossil fuel; an approach he believes would have a greater impact over time, and would also eliminate the punitive carbon-reduction-without-other-substitutes problem for the poor, or developing countries.

    While eliminating poverty in the world is a noble goal, it might rate even higher on the challenge Richter scale than stopping global warming itself. Not that we shouldn't invest in mosquito nets, micro-finance and micro-nutrient initiatives. And not that we shouldn't, as a country that has more margin to play with, do all we can to reduce our carbon emissions. Just because the rest of the world isn't perfect doesn't excuse us from our own responsibility to be responsible.

    But although Lomborg didn't explicitly make this point, it occurred to me that if the key to success is, in essence, to convince the Masai that they will economically benefit more by saving the elephant than killing it, there might be another benefit in his alternative fuels and technology approach. Investing in alternative fuels, versus focusing on carbon emission reduction, might reduce the punitive pressure on developing countries. But if there were somehow money to be made by alternative technology that could be developed, built, or somehow used to the profit and benefit of those people and countries, they might be more willing to work on keeping the elephant alive.

    It's a complex issue, with more problems than answers. But looking at what would make the rest of the world want to get on board is certainly an angle worth considering in the debate.

    A number of years ago, I spent some time in Africa with members of the Kenyan Wildlife Service whose mission was to protect endangered and protected wildlife from poachers. The job was hazardous; poachers were generally armed and willing to shoot. And the penalties, if the poachers were caught, were severe. But, the KWS rangers said, it wasn't a clear case of good guys versus the bad guys. Yes, the poaching was terrible. And the big money it offered didn't even go, in most cases, to the hunters themselves. They might make $200 for elephant tusks that their "employers" would turn around and sell on the global market for many, many times that amount. "But it's hard to make the case that we need to preserve the elephants," one of the rangers explained to me, "to a Masai tribesman who is so poor that $200 could make the difference between his 6-year-old son living or dying. He's not going to sacrifice his son to save some wild animal."

    No, of course not. No parent would. Part of the challenge, then, was to try to convince the tribesmen that the tourism the elephants would bring to the area would provide as much or more income, at far less risk, than poaching.

    It's a point that was highlighted earlier this week during Secretary of State HIllary Rodham Clinton's visit to India, when her upbeat comments about being partners with India in fighting global warming were countered, almost immediately, by Jairam Ramesh, India's environment and forests minister. The Indian minister said that India was not in a position to take on legally binding emission standards, and already had one of the lowest carbon emissions rates per capita, in the world.

    Roughly translated, Ramesh was saying, pointedly, that the U.S. could well talk about reducing emissions, because it already had a developed and basically well-fed society … a position it had attained because it didn't have to worry about carbon emissions as it developed. India, with a population of over 1 billion, a poverty rate （living on less than $1.25 a day） of somewhere around 40%, doesn't have that luxury. The rich folk can worry about saving the elephants; the poor have more urgent problems at hand. When most Indians can afford clean transportation, are well fed and safely above poverty levels, come talk to them about reducing emissions.

    It's a point echoed in "Mr. Gore, Your Solution to Global Warming is Wrong," a feature in the current issue of Esquire magazine. Written by Bjorn Lomborg, the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a professor at the Copenhagen Business School, the article offers an interesting perspective on the global warming debate. Or, rather, the global warming solution debate. Professor Lomborg does not believe that reducing carbon emissions will solve the problem, and argues that our focus on emission reduction is misplaced. In part because of the minor difference that approach is projected to have, over time, but also because of the punitive consequences of that approach for a large percentage of the world's population.

    Global warming may harm your grandchildren's chances of survival in sub-Saharan Africa 50 years from now, but if you don't use that poorly maintained, diesel-guzzling truck you somehow got lucky enough to have access to, your children may die next week. And rather than investing billions in reducing carbon emissions, you'd much prefer the powers that be invested in mosquito nets.

    When and how does that change? One way, according to Lomborg, is for the poor to become, well … less poor. "Once a country achieves a certain standard of living, with their kids healthy and educated, citizens invariably begin to shift their focus toward the environment, and pollution starts to fall," he notes -- a dynamic known as the "Kuznets curve."

    Consequently, Lomborg advocates a number of nutrition and economic initiatives that may not seem directly related to global warming, but could aid the effort by increasing the number of people with enough margin, or luxury, to care. Lomborg also argues that significant change needs to come from developing alternate fuel sources and eliminating the need for fossil fuel; an approach he believes would have a greater impact over time, and would also eliminate the punitive carbon-reduction-without-other-substitutes problem for the poor, or developing countries.

    While eliminating poverty in the world is a noble goal, it might rate even higher on the challenge Richter scale than stopping global warming itself. Not that we shouldn't invest in mosquito nets, micro-finance and micro-nutrient initiatives. And not that we shouldn't, as a country that has more margin to play with, do all we can to reduce our carbon emissions. Just because the rest of the world isn't perfect doesn't excuse us from our own responsibility to be responsible.

    But although Lomborg didn't explicitly make this point, it occurred to me that if the key to success is, in essence, to convince the Masai that they will economically benefit more by saving the elephant than killing it, there might be another benefit in his alternative fuels and technology approach. Investing in alternative fuels, versus focusing on carbon emission reduction, might reduce the punitive pressure on developing countries. But if there were somehow money to be made by alternative technology that could be developed, built, or somehow used to the profit and benefit of those people and countries, they might be more willing to work on keeping the elephant alive.

    It's a complex issue, with more problems than answers. But looking at what would make the rest of the world want to get on board is certainly an angle worth considering in the debate.

    許多年前，我曾在非洲與肯尼亞野生動物機構的成員們待過一段時間，他們的任務是保護瀕危動物，以及保護野生動物免遭偷獵者的捕殺。這項工作十分危險，偷獵者通常都帶有武器，開槍也無所顧忌，逮捕偷獵者所要付出的代價往往十分沉重。不過肯尼亞野生動物機構的護林員們表示，其實很難單純以一種好人抓壞人的方式來看待偷獵活動。誠然，偷獵是種惡劣行徑，而且在大多數偷獵活動中，偷獵者往往得不到利潤的大頭，他們可能會以200美元的價格把象牙賣給"下家",而"下家"在全球市場上一轉手就可以賣個高出數倍的價格。一名護林員告訴我："即便如此，這也給我們保護野生大象帶來很大的難度。對于一個窮到200美元就能左右他6歲兒子生死的馬薩伊部落男人來說，他不會為了挽救一些野生動物而犧牲他的兒子。"

    當然不會，沒有父母會這么做。作為挑戰的一部分，護林員們還得試著讓這些部落男人們相信大象為該地區帶來的旅游收入與偷獵相當或更多一些，而所冒的風險則少得多。

    值得指出的是，本周國務卿希拉里·克林頓訪問印度期間，當她表達了與印度就對抗全球變暖問題共同合作的樂觀態度時，印度環境和林業部長賈米爾·拉梅什干脆利落地頂了回去。這名印度部長表示印度還沒法達到法定的碳排放標準，而且已經是世界上人均碳排放最低的國家之一。

    拉梅什的意思大概可以這樣來理解，美國之所以不厭其煩地談論減少碳排放，是因為美國有一個發展完善、家底殷實的社會基礎，其所達到的位置已經使得其無需擔心限制碳排放的問題。而反觀我們印度，人口超過10億，人口貧困率（每天生活費用不足1.25美元）40%左右，印度沒有奢侈的本錢。有錢人可以關心大象的死活，而窮人則有更多眼前的問題亟待解決。當大部分印度人能夠買得起清潔的交通工具，吃得飽喝得足，無需在貧困線上掙扎的時候，你再跟他們討論減排的問題吧。

    這跟《紳士》雜志上最近發表的一篇文章的觀點遙相呼應---"戈爾先生，你解決全球變暖問題的方法是不對的".文章的作者比昂·隆伯格是哥本哈根輿論中心的主任和哥本哈根商學院教授，這篇文章為有關全球變暖---說得更明確些---有關全球變暖解決方案的討論帶來了一個有趣的觀點。隆伯格教授并不認為減少碳排放能夠解決問題，并質疑我們孜孜不倦的關注減排是種錯誤。部分因為現有的方案都大同小異，還由于那些方案給占世界大部分比例的人口帶來的是懲罰性的后果。

    從今天算起50年后，全球變暖可能會影響你后代子孫在非洲撒哈拉以南地區存活的幾率，但如果你不用那輛空間狹小的油老虎卡車來穿過沙漠的話，你的孩子可能下周就得翹辮子。比起把幾十億美元投在減少碳排放上，你可能更愿意多買幾頂蚊帳。

    何時以及怎樣做出改變呢？按隆伯格的話來說，一種方法是讓窮人變得，呃，有錢一些。他用動態的"庫茲涅茨曲線"進一步闡述觀點："只要一個國家達到了一定的生活標準，孩子們身體健康，都能上得起學，那么這個國家的國民自然而然的就會把注意力轉向環境，污染問題也會隨之減少。"

    所以隆伯格認為營養學和經濟學上的眾多創新與全球變暖也許并無直接聯系，但對增加有足夠的資本和閑心來關心環境問題的人的數量可能有所幫助。隆伯格還辯稱標志性的改變應該來自處于發展階段的用以減少化石燃料需求的替代能源中，他相信隨著時間的推移這將是能產生巨大影響力的方法，并能夠取消對減排后無替代物問題的貧窮的，或是正處于發展階段國家的懲罰措施。

    當在世界范圍內消除貧窮是一個高尚目標的時候，比起阻止全球變暖，脫貧應該占據更重要的位置。并不是我們不應該投資在蚊帳，小企業和小型營養創新上。也并不是我們不應該在我們自己國家有實力的時候，竭盡全力降低碳排放。只是因為世界上其他地方并不完美，我們沒有借口推脫應該承擔的責任。

    雖然隆伯格沒有明確的指出這一點，但卻使我覺得從本質上看，如果成功的關鍵在于令馬薩伊人相信拯救大象比殺死它們會給他們帶來更多經濟利益的話，那么（也可以讓他們相信）在替代能源和技術上也可能會給他們帶來其他利益。與關注減少碳排放相比，投資替代能源也許能夠減少發展中國家所需承受的懲罰壓力。而如果用在技術升級上的錢可以進一步增值，并給那些國家和人民帶來好處，那么他們會更樂意讓大象活著。

    這是一個復雜的議題，問題遠比答案要多。在討論中，尋找讓其他國家愿意同心協力的方法無疑是非常必要的。