Climate change is already a heavy topic, and it's getting heavier because we're understanding that we need to do more than we are. We're understanding, in fact, that those of us who live in the developed world need to be really pushing towards eliminating our emissions. That's, to put it mildly, not what's on the table now. And it tends to feel a little overwhelming when we look at what is there in reality today and the magnitude of the problem that we face. And when we have overwhelming problems in front of us, we tend to seek simple answers. And I think this is what we've done with climate change. We look at where the emissions are coming from -- they're coming out of our tailpipes and smokestacks and so forth, and we say, okay, well the problem is that they're coming out of fossil fuels that we're burning, so therefore, the answer must be to replace those fossil fuels with clean sources of energy. And while, of course, we do need clean energy, I would put to you that it's possible that by looking at climate change as a clean energy generation problem, we're in fact setting ourselves up not to solve it.
Klimatske promene već predstavljaju značajnu temu koja postaje sve ozbiljnija zato što počinjemo da shvatamo da moramo činiti više nego što sada radimo. Mi shvatamo, zapravo, da bi oni među nama, koji žive u razvijenom svetu trebali nastojati da eliminišu naše emisije štetnih gasova. O tome se, blago rečeno, trenutno ne raspravlja. I pomalo deluje zaprepašćujuće kada pogledamo današnju realnost i veličinu problema sa kojim se susrećemo. I kada imamo zaprepašćujuće probleme pred nama, obično tragamo za jednostavnim odgovorima. Mislim da smo to uradili i sa klimatskim promenama. Tražimo odakle dolaze emisije gasova -- a oni potiču iz naših izduvnih cevi, dimnjaka i tako dalje, tada mi kažemo, u redu, problem je što emisije dolaze iz fosilnih goriva koja sagorevamo, stoga, odgovor mora biti u zameni tih fosilnih goriva čistim izvorima energije. I dok mi, naravno, imamo potrebu za čistom energijom, naglasio bih da je moguće kako se, bavljenjem klimatskim promenama kao problemom stvaranja čiste energije, zapravo udaljavamo od rešenja.
And the reason why is that we live on a planet that is rapidly urbanizing. That shouldn't be news to any of us. However, it's hard sometimes to remember the extent of that urbanization. By mid-century, we're going to have about eight billion -- perhaps more -- people living in cities or within a day's travel of one. We will be an overwhelmingly urban species. In order to provide the kind of energy that it would take for eight billion people living in cities that are even somewhat like the cities that those of us in the global North live in today, we would have to generate an absolutely astonishing amount of energy. It may be possible that we are not even able to build that much clean energy. So if we're seriously talking about tackling climate change on an urbanizing planet, we need to look somewhere else for the solution.
Razlog tome je činjenica da mi živimo na planeti koja se ubrzano urbanizuje. Ovo ne bi trebalo biti novost za bilo koga od nas. Međutim, ponekad je teško zapamtiti razmere te urbanizacije. Do polovine ovog veka, imaćemo oko osam milijardi ljudi -- možda i više -- koji će živeti u gradovima ili na dan putovanja od nekog grada. Bićemo izričito urbana vrsta. U cilju obezbeđivanja vrste energije koja je potrebna da osam milijardi ljudi živi u gradovima koji bar donekle nalikuju gradovima u kakvima danas živimo mi na severnoj hemisferi, morali bismo proizvesti zapanjujuću količinu energije. Moguće je da nismo čak ni u mogućnosti da proizvedemo toliko čiste energije. Pa ako već ozbiljno govorimo o bavljenju klimatskim promenama na planeti koja se urbanizuje, rešenje moramo potražiti na drugom mestu.
The solution, in fact, may be closer to hand than we think, because all of those cities we're building are opportunities. Every city determines to a very large extent the amount of energy used by its inhabitants. We tend to think of energy use as a behavioral thing -- I choose to turn this light switch on -- but really, enormous amounts of our energy use are predestined by the kinds of communities and cities that we live in. I won't show you very many graphs today, but if I can just focus on this one for a moment, it really tells us a lot of what we need to know -- which is, quite simply, that if you look, for example, at transportation, a major category of climate emissions, there is a direct relationship between how dense a city is and the amount of climate emissions that its residents spew out into the air. And the correlation, of course, is that denser places tend to have lower emissions -- which isn't really all that difficult to figure out, if you think about it.
Rešenje, zapravo, može biti bliže nego što mislimo, jer svi oni gradovi koje gradimo su naše prilike. Svaki grad u velikoj meri određuje količinu energije koju koriste njegovi stanovnici. Mi volimo da razmišljamo o potrošnji energije kao da je to stvar ponašanja -- ja odlučujem da upalim ovaj prekidač za svetlo -- ali u stvari, ogromna količina naše potrošnje energije je predodređena vrstom zajednica i gradova u kojima živimo. Neću vam pokazati mnogo grafikona, ali ako mogu za trenutak da se fokusiram na ovaj, on nam stvarno govori mnogo o tome šta treba da znamo -- a to je, jednostavno, da ako, na primer, uzmemo u obzir prevoz, glavnu kategoriju u emisiji štetnih gasova, postoji direktna zavisnost između gustine u gradovima i količine izduvnih gasova koju njegovi stanovnici ispuštaju u atmosferu. Korelacija, naravno, kaže da gušća mesta teže da imaju niže emisije -- što i nije zapravo teško shvatiti, ako razmislite o tome.
Basically, we substitute, in our lives, access to the things we want. We go out there and we hop in our cars and we drive from place to place. And we're basically using mobility to get the access we need. But when we live in a denser community, suddenly what we find, of course, is that the things we need are close by. And since the most sustainable trip is the one that you never had to make in the first place, suddenly our lives become instantly more sustainable. And it is possible, of course, to increase the density of the communities around us.
U osnovi, mi u našim životima menjamo pristup stvarima koje želimo. Uskočimo u svoje automobile i vozimo se od jednog mesta do drugog. Time koristimo mobilnost da bi dobili pristup koji nam je potreban. Ali kada živimo u gušćoj zajednici odjednom shvatamo, naravno, da potrebne stvari su zapravo blizu. A budući da je najodrživiji put onaj na koji iz početka ne moramo ni krenuti, odjednom naši životi istog trenutka postaju održivi. Moguće je, naravno, povećati gustinu zajednica oko nas.
Some places are doing this with new eco districts, developing whole new sustainable neighborhoods, which is nice work if you can get it, but most of the time, what we're talking about is, in fact, reweaving the urban fabric that we already have. So we're talking about things like infill development: really sharp little changes to where we have buildings, where we're developing. Urban retrofitting: creating different sorts of spaces and uses out of places that are already there. Increasingly, we're realizing that we don't even need to densify an entire city. What we need instead is an average density that rises to a level where we don't drive as much and so on. And that can be done by raising the density in very specific spots a whole lot. So you can think of it as tent poles that actually raise the density of the entire city.
Neka mesta ovo izvode svojim novim eko područjima, razvijajući celokupna nova održiva susedstva, što je lep posao ako ga možete postići, ali većinu vremena, ono o čemu govorimo je, u stvari, prekrajanje urbanog materijala koji već imamo. Govorimo o stvarima kao što je unutrašnji razvoj: iznenadne male promene na mestima gde se nalaze zgrade, mestima gde se razvijamo. Urbana obnova: stvaranje različitih vrsta prostora i namena iz mesta koja se već tamo nalaze. Sve više, shvatamo da nema potrebe za zgušnjavanjem celog grada. Umesto toga potrebna nam je prosečna gustina koja se podiže do nivoa na kome ne vozimo toliko i tako dalje. A to može biti postignuto podizanjem gustine na određenim mestima. Možete to uporediti sa šatorskim šipkama koje zapravo podižu gustinu čitavog grada.
And we find that when we do that, we can, in fact, have a few places that are really hyper-dense within a wider fabric of places that are perhaps a little more comfortable and achieve the same results. Now we may find that there are places that are really, really dense and still hold onto their cars, but the reality is that, by and large, what we see when we get a lot of people together with the right conditions is a threshold effect, where people simply stop driving as much, and increasingly, more and more people, if they're surrounded by places that make them feel at home, give up their cars altogether. And this is a huge, huge energy savings, because what comes out of our tailpipe is really just the beginning of the story with climate emissions from cars. We have the manufacture of the car, the disposal of the car, all of the parking and freeways and so on. When you can get rid of all of those because somebody doesn't use any of them really, you find that you can actually cut transportation emissions as much as 90 percent.
Otkrili smo da kada uradimo to, možemo, imati nekoliko mesta koja su stvarno gusto naseljena u okviru šireg tkiva mesta koja su verovatno nešto udobnija i postižu iste rezultate. Možemo naći da postoje mesta koja su veoma gusta, a njeni stanovnici ne odustaju od automobila, ali realnost je da, sve u svemu, ono što dobijemo kada imamo mnoštvo ljudi u pravim uslovima je efekat praga, gde ljudi prosto prestaju toliko voziti, a sve više i više ljudi, ako su okruženi mestima zbog kojih se osećaju kao kod kuće, i u potpunosti odustaje od vožnje. A to je velika, velika ušteda energije, jer ono što dolazi iz izduvnih cevi je stvarno samo početak priče o izduvnim gasovima iz automobila. Imamo proizvodnju automobila, odlaganje automobilskog otpada, sve do parkinga i auto-puteva i tako dalje. Kada uspete da se rešite svega, zbog toga što neko ne koristi ni jedno od navedenog, tada otkrijete da zapravo možete smanjiti emisije izduvnih gasova čak za 90 procenata.
And people are embracing this. All around the world, we're seeing more and more people embrace this walkshed life. People are saying that it's moving from the idea of the dream home to the dream neighborhood. And when you layer that over with the kind of ubiquitous communications that we're starting to see, what you find is, in fact, even more access suffused into spaces. Some of it's transportation access. This is a Mapnificent map that shows me, in this case, how far I can get from my home in 30 minutes using public transportation. Some of it is about walking. It's not all perfect yet. This is Google Walking Maps. I asked how to do the greater Ridgeway, and it told me to go via Guernsey. It did tell me that this route maybe missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths, though. (Laughter) But the technologies are getting better, and we're starting to really kind of crowdsource this navigation. And as we just heard earlier, of course, we're also learning how to put information on dumb objects. Things that don't have any wiring in them at all, we're learning how to include in these systems of notation and navigation.
Ljudi ovo prihvataju. Svugde na svetu, vidimo sve više i više ljudi koji prihvataju hodanje kao način života. Ljudi govore da se radi o prelasku sa ideje o kući iz snova na susedstvo iz snova. A kada tome dodate sveprisutnu komunikaciju koju počinjemo da uviđamo, ono što prvo dobijete, je zapravo, još veći pristup raširen u prostoru. Pristup prevozu deo je toga. Ovo je "Mapnificent" mapa koja mi, u ovom slučaju, pokazuje koliko daleko mogu odmaći od svoje kuće za 30 minuta koristeći javni prevoz. Drugi deo se odnosi na pešačenje. Još nije usavršeno. Ovo su Guglove mape pešačenja. Pitao sam kako do Ridžveja, i rekao mi je da idem preko Gernsija. Ipak me je upozorio da ova ruta možda ipak nema trotoare i pešačke staze. (Smeh) Ali tehnologije napreduju, i počinjemo da zajednički pravimo ovakvu navigaciju. Kao što smo upravo čuli ranije, naravno, da takođe učimo kako da postavimo informacije na neme predmete. Stvari koje u sebi nemaju nikakve žice, učimo kako uključiti u ove sisteme obeležavanja i navigacije.
Part of what we're finding with this is that what we thought was the major point of manufacturing and consumption, which is to get a bunch of stuff, is not, in fact, how we really live best in dense environments. What we're finding is that what we want is access to the capacities of things. My favorite example is a drill. Who here owns a drill, a home power drill? Okay. I do too. The average home power drill is used somewhere between six and 20 minutes in its entire lifetime, depending on who you ask. And so what we do is we buy these drills that have a potential capacity of thousands of hours of drill time, use them once or twice to put a hole in the wall and let them sit. Our cities, I would put to you, are stockpiles of these surplus capacities. And while we could try and figure out new ways to use those capacities -- such as cooking or making ice sculptures or even a mafia hit -- what we probably will find is that, in fact, turning those products into services that we have access to when we want them, is a far smarter way to go.
Deo koji otkrivamo pomoću toga je onaj za koji smo mislili da je glavna tačka proizvodnje i potrošnje, kojom se dobija većina stvari, i koja zapravo nije najbolji način života u gustim okruženjima Otkrili smo da je ono što želimo pristup kapacitetima stvari. Moj omiljeni primer je bušilica. Ko ovde poseduje kućnu električnu bušilicu? U redu, i ja takođe. Prosečna kućna bušilica se koristi negde između 6 i 20 minuta u celom svom radnom veku, zavisno od toga koga pitate. I tako mi kupujemo ove bušilice koje imaju potencijalni kapacitet od više hiljada sati bušenja, upotrebimo ih koji put za bušenje rupe u zidu i pustimo ih da stoje. Naši gradovi, rekao bih, su gomila ovih suvišnih kapaciteta. I dok mi pokušavamo da shvatimo nove načine da koristimo te kapacitete -- kao što je kuvanje ili pravljenje ledenih skulptura ili čak i mafijaško ubistvo -- ono što ćemo verovatno otkriti je, u stvari, da pretvaranje ovih proizvoda u usluge kojima imamo pristup kada to želimo, je znatno pametnija stvar.
And in fact, even space itself is turning into a service. We're finding that people can share the same spaces, do stuff with vacant space. Buildings are becoming bundles of services. So we have new designs that are helping us take mechanical things that we used to spend energy on -- like heating, cooling etc. -- and turn them into things that we avoid spending energy on. So we light our buildings with daylight. We cool them with breezes. We heat them with sunshine. In fact, when we use all these things, what we've found is that, in some cases, energy use in a building can drop as much as 90 percent. Which brings on another threshold effect I like to call furnace dumping, which is, quite simply, if you have a building that doesn't need to be heated with a furnace, you save a whole bunch of money up front. These things actually become cheaper to build than the alternatives.
Zapravo se čak i prostor pretvara u uslugu. Nalazimo da ljudi mogu deliti isti prostor, raditi razne stvari sa praznim prostorom. Građevine se pretvaraju u skup usluga. Tako imamo nove projekte koji nam pomažu da uzmemo mehaničke stvari na koje smo trošili energiju -- kao što je grejanje, hlađenje itd -- i pretvorimo ih u stvari koje izbegavaju da nadalje troše energiju. Tako bismo zgrade osvetljavali dnevnom svetlošću. Hladili bismo ih strujanjem vazduha. Grejali sunčevom svetlošću. Zapravo, kada koristimo sve ove stvari, otkrivamo da, u nekim slučajevima, upotreba energije u nekim zgradama može opasti za čak 90 procenata. Što nas dovodi do još jednog efekta praga koji ja volim da nazovem odbacivanje peći, što je, prosto, ukoliko imate zgradu koja nema potrebe za grejanjem pomoću peći, unapred imate uštedu gomile novca. Zapravo postaje jeftinije graditi takve zgrade za razliku od alternativa.
Now when we look at being able to slash our product use, slash our transportation use, slash our building energy use, all of that is great, but it still leaves something behind. And if we're going to really, truly become sustainable cities, we need to think a little differently. This is one way to do it. This is Vancouver's propaganda about how green a city they are. And certainly lots of people have taken to heart this idea that a sustainable city is covered in greenery. So we have visions like this. We have visions like this. We have visions like this.
Sada kada razmislimo o mogućnosti da umanjimo upotrebu proizvoda, prevoza, energije u zgradama, sve je to sjajno, ali i dalje ostavlja za sobom neke posledice. Ako zaista želimo da postanemo pravi održivi gradovi, moramo razmišljati nešto drugačije. Ovo je jedan način. Ovo je propaganda Vankuvera o tome kakav su oni zeleni grad. I zasigurno je mnogo ljudi shvatilo ozbiljno ideju da je održiv grad prekriven zelenilom. Imamo ovakve vizije. I ovakve. I ovakve.
Now all of these are fine projects, but they really have missed an essential point, which is it's not about the leaves above, it's about the systems below. Do they, for instance, capture rainwater so that we can reduce water use? Water is energy intensive. Do they, perhaps, include green infrastructure, so that we can take runoff and water that's going out of our houses and clean it and filter it and grow urban street trees? Do they connect us back to the ecosystems around us by, for example, connecting us to rivers and allowing for restoration? Do they allow for pollination, pollinator pathways that bees and butterflies and such can come back into our cities? Do they even take the very waste matter that we have from food and fiber and so forth, and turn it back into soil and sequester carbon -- take carbon out of the air in the process of using our cities?
Sve su ovo dobri projekti, ali su stvarno promašili suštinu, koja se ne odnosi na lišće iznad, već na sistem ispod. Skupljaju li, na primer, kišnicu da bismo mogli smanjiti upotrebu vode? Voda je energetski intenzivna. Da li, možda, podrazumevaju zelenu infranstrukturu, da bismo mogli uzeti kišnicu i vodu koja potiče iz naših domova kao i da je pročiste i filtriraju za navodnjavanje urbanog zelenila? Povezuju li nas ponovno sa ekosistemima oko nas tako što nas, na primer, povezuju sa rekama i omogućuju obnavljanje? Da li dozvoljavaju oprašivanje, puteve za oprašivače kako bi se pčele i leptiri mogli vratiti u naše gradove? Uzimaju li uopšte sam otpad od naše hrane, materijala i tako dalje, i da li ih vraćaju zemlji odvajajući ugljenik -- uzimajući ugljenik iz vazduha u procesu iskorišćavanja naših gradova?
I would submit to you that all of these things are not only possible, they're being done right now, and that it's a darn good thing. Because right now, our economy by and large operates as Paul Hawken said, "by stealing the future, selling it in the present and calling it GDP." And if we have another eight billion or seven billion, or six billion, even, people, living on a planet where their cities also steal the future, we're going to run out of future really fast. But if we think differently, I think that, in fact, we can have cities that are not only zero emissions, but have unlimited possibilities as well.
Priznao bih vam da su sve te stvari ne samo moguće, nego se već sada rade, što je stvarno dobra stvar. Zbog toga što u ovom trenutku, naša ekonomija funkcioniše kako je Pol Hoken rekao, "kradući budućnost, prodajući je u sadašnjosti i nazivajući je BDP-om". I ako dodatnih osam milijardi ili sedam milijardi, ili čak šest milijardi ljudi, živi na planeti gde njihovi gradovi takođe kradu budućnost, vrlo brzo će nam ponestati te budućnosti. Ali ako budemo drugačije razmišljali, mislim da možemo imati gradove koji ne samo da imaju nultu emisiju, već imaju i neograničene mogućnosti.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala
(Applause)
(Aplauz)