Learn Hardcore Chinese: duō zǒulù shǎo kāichē búdàn néng jiéshěng néngyuán, hái kěyǐ jiǎnshǎo wūrǎn. - Walking more and driving less not only saves energy, but can also reduce pollution.

Compared with 走很多路, which describes “walk a lot of road” (quantity of walking), 多走路 emphasizes “increase the amount of walking (compared to now / in general).” It sounds more like advice or a recommendation.

Why is it 走路 and not just 走? What’s the difference between 走 and 走路?

Both can mean “to walk,” but they’re used a bit differently:

走路 literally “walk road” → ordinary “to walk (on foot).”
- 我每天走路上班。 – I walk to work every day.
走 is more general: “to go / to leave / to walk.”
- 我走了。 – I’m leaving.
- 往前走。 – Walk/go forward.

When you mean “to walk (as a way of moving around, instead of driving, etc.)”, 走路 is the natural choice.
多走路少开车 is a fixed, natural-sounding pattern in Chinese; 多走少开车 would be understandable, but feels a bit incomplete or less idiomatic in this context.

Why is there no subject like 我们 or 你们 in this sentence? Who is the sentence talking about?

Chinese often drops the subject when it’s obvious from context or when the sentence is making a general statement / suggestion.

Here, 多走路少开车不但能节省能源，还可以减少污染。 is like saying in English:

“Walking more and driving less not only saves energy, it can also reduce pollution.”
or implied: “If people walk more and drive less, (they) can not only save energy, but also reduce pollution.”

The “subject” is a general “people / we / you”. Because it’s a general principle, Chinese is happy to leave it out. This is very common in statements that sound like slogans, advice, or general truths.

What is the function of 不但 … 还 … here? How is it different from 不但 … 而且 …?

不但 … 还 … expresses “not only … but also …”:

不但能节省能源，还可以减少污染。
= Not only can (it) save energy, it can also reduce pollution.

不但 … 而且 … is a more “complete” and slightly more formal pattern:

不但能节省能源，而且可以减少污染。

In speech and in many written contexts, 而且 is often replaced by 还 or 也:

不但 … 还 …
不但 … 也 …

So:

不但 … 而且 … – a bit more formal or textbook.
不但 … 还 … – very natural and common, especially in everyday language.

They mean essentially the same thing here.

Why do we see both 能 and 可以 in 不但能节省能源，还可以减少污染? Aren’t they both “can”?

Yes, both 能 and 可以 can translate as “can,” but there’s a nuance:

能 often emphasizes ability / possibility / result:
- 能节省能源 – is able to / will be able to save energy (as a result).
可以 often emphasizes possibility / permission / option:
- 可以减少污染 – can (has the effect of) reducing pollution / it’s possible to reduce pollution.

In this sentence, they’re basically interchangeable; the writer is not making a strong distinction. You could also say:

不但可以节省能源，还可以减少污染。
不但能节省能源，还能减少污染。

All are acceptable. Keeping 能 in the first clause and 可以 in the second gives a little variety in wording, but not a big change in meaning.

What’s the difference between 节省, 节约, and 省? Why use 节省 with 能源?

All three relate to “saving” (not wasting), but their usage differs:

节省 (jiéshěng) – “to economize / to save by using less”
- Often used with time, money, resources, energy:
  - 节省时间 / 节省钱 / 节省能源
节约 (jiéyuē) – “to be frugal / to use sparingly”
- Often used in slogans and with water, electricity, resources:
  - 节约用水 / 节约用电 / 节约能源
- Slightly more formal/slogan-like than 节省.
省 (shěng) – a shorter, more colloquial verb meaning “to save; to economize”:
- 省钱 / 省时间 / 省电

With 能源 (energy resources), both 节省能源 and 节约能源 are common and correct. Here 节省能源 just fits the style of the sentence; 节约能源 would also be natural.

What exactly does 能源 mean? How is it different from 能量 or just “electricity” like 电?

能源 = energy resources / energy sources (things that can produce or store useful energy)
- Includes oil, natural gas, coal, electricity, solar energy, etc.
- Used in environmental / economic contexts:
  - 节约能源 – to conserve energy resources
  - 开发新能源 – to develop new energy sources
能量 = energy in a more physical / scientific or abstract sense (like calories, physical energy, mental energy):
- 热能量 / 电能量 – thermal energy / electrical energy
- 我今天一点能量都没有。 – I have no energy at all today.
电 = electricity / electric power specifically.

So 节省能源 is about conserving energy resources in general, not just electricity.

What is the difference between 减少 and just 减? Why say 减少污染 instead of 减污染?

Both relate to “reducing,” but:

减少 = to lessen / to decrease / to reduce (more formal/complete verb)
- 减少污染 / 减少浪费 / 减少人口
减 by itself is shorter and often used in:
- Compounds like 减肥 (to lose weight), 减速 (slow down), 减价 (reduce the price).
- In speech, sometimes as a shortened form, especially with tacked-on objects, but 减污染 on its own sounds a bit abrupt or slogan-like.

减少污染 is the standard, natural phrase for “reduce pollution.” It sounds complete and neutral in tone.

Is 污染 here a noun or a verb? How do I say “to pollute” vs “pollution” in Chinese?

污染 can be both a noun and a verb. Context tells you which one it is.

As a verb: “to pollute / to contaminate”
- 污染空气 – to pollute the air
- 不要污染河流。 – Don’t pollute the rivers.
As a noun: “pollution / contamination”
- 空气污染 / 水污染 – air pollution / water pollution
- 减少污染 – reduce pollution

In 减少污染, 污染 is a noun: “pollution.”
So the second half of the sentence literally is “(it) can also reduce pollution.”

Why use 还 in 还可以减少污染 instead of 也? What’s the difference between 还 and 也 here?

Both 还 and 也 can translate as “also”, but:

还 often has a feeling of “in addition / furthermore / on top of that”, sometimes adding a sense of “another benefit / extra point.”
- 不但能节省能源，还可以减少污染。
  → Not only can it save energy, it can also / further reduce pollution.
也 is more neutral: “also / too.”
- 不但能节省能源，也可以减少污染。 – Also correct, but feels a bit flatter.

In 不但 … 还 …, 还 pairs very naturally with 不但, emphasizing an extra positive result. That’s why 还 is especially common in this pattern.

Is this sentence more like a general statement of fact or an instruction / suggestion? How would I feel it as a native-level listener?

It has the flavor of a general truth that also functions as advice, similar to a slogan or public notice.

Grammatically, it’s a statement:
- “Walking more and driving less not only saves energy, but can also reduce pollution.”
Pragmatically, in Chinese this kind of sentence is often used as recommendation or advocacy, almost like:
- “We should walk more and drive less; that way we not only save energy, but also reduce pollution.”

The lack of an explicit subject and the 多…少… pattern make it feel like a general call to action rather than just a neutral scientific fact.

Could I reorder or slightly change the sentence and still be correct? For example, can I say 多走路，少开车，不但可以节省能源，还能减少污染?

Yes, small variations like that are completely natural. For example:

多走路，少开车，不但可以节省能源，还能减少污染。
多走路，少开车，不但能节省能源，还能减少污染。
多走路，少开车，不但节省能源，还减少污染。 (more compact; no modal verbs)

These all keep the same basic meaning. The original version:

多走路少开车不但能节省能源，还可以减少污染。

is just one smooth, flowing sentence, suitable for written text or a slogan. Adding commas after 多走路 and 少开车 is also very common in actual usage:

多走路，少开车，不但能节省能源，还可以减少污染。