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.
气候变化已经是一个沉重的话题 并且正变得越来越沉重 因为我们知道 我们需要付出的比现在更多 我们清楚,事实上 我们之中那些生活在发达世界的人们 需要切实的去推进减排的工作 那已经,说的委婉一点,不能仅仅是纸上谈兵了 当我们看看真实情况 以及面临的巨大问题 会感到有点势不可挡的感觉 当棘手的问题摆在我们面前的时候 我们都会试图寻找简单的解决方法 我认为这就是我们现在面对气候变化的所作所为 我们看到排放气体的来源-- 它们来自我们的排气管和烟囱等等 然后我们说,恩,问题就是 它们来自化石燃料的燃烧 因此,解决方法一定就是 把那些化石燃料换成清洁能源 虽然说,毫无疑问,我们确实需要清洁能源 我会向你提出如果我们 把气候变化问题 看做是清洁能源问题 那么我们实际上让自己偏离了解决问题 的正确方向
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.
原因在于 我们生活的星球 正在快速的城市化 这对我们来说已经不是什么新闻了 但是,有时候我们已经很难 记住城市化的程度了 到本世纪中叶 我们会有大约80亿--也许更多--的人口 居住在城市 我们将不可避免的成为城市化物种 为了提供 足够的能源去满足80亿人 生活在城市 甚至是像城市的地方 像我们中现在生活在北方世界的人居住的地方 我们将不得不生产出 惊人数量的能源 也许我们 根本提供不了 那么多的清洁能源 因此如果我们严肃的来商讨如何在这个不断城市化的星球上 阻止气候变化 我们需要找到其他的解决方法
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.
这个解决方法,实际上可能就近在眼前 因为我们建造的所有城市 都是机会 在很大程度上,每座城市自身就决定了 其居民使用的能源量 我们趋向于把能源的使用想成一种行为方式-- 我选择把这盏灯关掉-- 但是实际上,我们居住的社区和城市的类型 已经决定了 我们会使用大量的能源 我今天不会向大家展示太多的图表 但是如果我们仔细看一下这张表的话 它能展示出许多我们需要了解的东西-- 那就是,一个非常简单的事实 如果你看一下,举个例子,交通运输 一个主要的气候排放来源 在城市密度 和城市居民 排放到空气中的废气量之间 是有直接联系的 它们之间的相互关系,当然了 密度越大的地方趋向于低排放-- 如果你仔细想想,其实它并不是很难理解
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.
基本上 生活中我们会选择不同的方法 完成我们想做的事情 我们外出时会一跃而进我们的爱车 然后驾车去往目的地 通常我们选用机动性的方式去达成我们的意愿 但是当我们生活在高密度的社区时 我们会猛然发现,当然 我们需要的东西都在我们的周围 因为最绿色的出行方式 是你根本就不需要出行 不经意间我们的生活方式立刻变得更加绿色了 增加社区的密度,当然 是完全可能的
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.
一些地方正在做着类似新生态区的事情 正在发展一套全新的可持续发展的生活区 如果你了解这项工作,你会觉得它很棒 但是大多数时候,我们讨论的实际上是 重新编制我们现有的城市网络 因此我们更多提到的是填充式开发: 即对我们现有的建筑 和正在发展中事物不做明显的改变 城市改造: 即在我们现在已经使用的空间基础上 创造出不同种的新空间和用途 渐渐的,我们就会意识到 我们甚至不需要去增加整个城市的密度 取而代之的是促使城市平均密度 达到一个 我们之前没有达到的程度 我们可以通过提高某些特定点的密度 来达到这个目标 你可以把它想成帐篷的几个支撑杆 它可以切实的提高整个城市的密度
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.
我们发现 当我们去做的时候 实际上,在一个可能安逸些的广阔地区 有几个真正 高密度的地方 就可以达到同样的结果 现在我们可能会发现有些地方密度确实很大 但仍然保有着他们的汽车 可是实际情况是,总的来说 当我们在适当的条件下把人们聚集在一起的时候,我们看到的是 一个门槛效应 当人们聚集在一个 他们认为有家的感觉的地方的时候 他们会自然的停止开车,并且渐渐地,越来越多的人 都会放弃他们的车 这将节省一笔非常非常可观的能源消耗 因为从排气管中排放的废气 仅仅是汽车业造成气候变化 的开端 其中还有汽车的制造,报废 所有的停车场以及高速路等环节 当你可以解决掉所有上述环节 因为有些人根本用不到上述任何一个设施 就可以切实的减少90%的 交通废气的排放
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.
人们在逐渐认同这个观点 纵观全球,我们看到越来越多的人们接受了这种步行生活方式 人们认为 大家的观念正在从拥有一个梦想的小家转变成 拥有一个梦想的社区 当你把那些 我们正在普遍使用的通讯方式引入的时候 你会发现,事实上 我们的生活会有更多的选择 其中就有一些交通选择 这是Mapnificent给出的一张地图,它显示了 从我家出发,在30分钟内乘坐公共交通 可以走多远 有一些是靠走路的,它还并不是各方面都很完美 这是个谷歌的步行地图 我问它如何去大Ridgeway区 它告诉我通过Guernsey 它并没有显示这条线路 也许错过了人行路或者步行路 (笑声) 但是科技在不断进步 这些导航工具也开始不断出现在我们周围 就像我们刚刚听到的 当然,我们同样正在学习如何把信息放到那些不说话的工具中 放到那些无线的工具中 我们正在学习如何把信息放入 这些标记和导航系统之中
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.
我们从中发现的部分结论是 我们之前以为 生产和消耗 的关键点 即生产出大量的产品 事实上并不能让 我们在高密度环境下生活得最好 我们寻找的正是我们所希望的 那就是让事物发挥出最大的承载力 我最喜欢的例子是钻头的例子,在坐的谁家有钻头?家用型的? 我也有 家用型钻头在它的整个使用寿命中平均 被使用6-20分钟 这取决于你问的是谁 因此我们做的就是买下这些 实际上有着数千小时使用寿命的钻头 然后用它们在墙上钻一两次洞,就把它们闲置在一边 我们的城市,我会向你展示 囤积了大量这样的盈余的能力 于是我们尝试发现 运用这些闲置能力的新方法-- 比如用它烹饪或者做冰雕 甚至可以当凶器-- 我们很可能会发现 实际上把这些产品转化为服务 我们需要的时候就可以使用的服务 这是非常明智的方法
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.
事实上,甚至空间本身也正在变成一种服务 我们发现人们可以共享一样的空间 用闲置的空间做些事情 建筑物就成了把这些服务聚集起来的地方 因此我们有了新设计 帮助我们把原来需要耗能的机械性设备-- 例如暖气和制冷装置等等-- 转变成无需耗能的装置 我们让建筑物采用自然采光 采用自然风降温 采用日光升温 实际上 当我们采用这些设计时 我们发现 在某些情况下 建筑物的节能程度可以高达90% 也带来了另一种门槛效应 我称其为“抛弃锅炉” 非常简单 如果一个建筑本身不需要靠锅炉房供暖 你就节省了一大笔资金 建筑成本也因此比之前 有所降低
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.
现在 当我们去 削减产品消耗,削减运输消耗 削减建筑物本身能源消耗 所有这些都很棒,但是还是有些事情需要改进 如果我们想真正的成为可持续发展型城市 我们需要考虑一些不同的东西 这里有一个方法 这是一个温哥华的宣传活动,关于他们的城市是多么环保 人们的观念里已经认为一个可持续发展的 城市一定是被绿色所覆盖的 因此我们就有了这样的想象 这样的想象,还有这样的
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?
这些都是很好的方案 但是他们还缺少了很重要的一点 缺少的不是外表的建设 而且是背后的系统建设 比如,他们有没有对雨水进行利用 从而减少水资源消耗 水是能源集中型的 他们的设想是否包括了绿色的基础设施 以便利于雨水的下渗和利用 还可以利用生活用水 清洁过滤 浇灌城市植被 这些方案是否可以回归到我们周围的生态系统中 比如,我们周围的河流 恢复它们的原貌 他们是考虑到花朵的授粉 提供传粉的通道 从而让蜜蜂和蝴蝶之类的传粉昆虫重新回到我们的城市? 甚至他们是否运用了废弃物 包括食物、纤维等等物质 让它们回归土壤 并进行固碳 即在我们使用城市的过程中 把碳从空气中剥离
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.
我想告诉大家所有这些方法不仅仅是可能 他们正在被运用着 这是非常好的事情 因为现在,我们的经济运作方式总的来说 就像保罗霍肯说的那样 "盗取将来的资源,在现在进行交易 然后称其为GDP” 如果再增加八十亿 或是七十亿 或者只是六十亿的人口 如果人们仍然以透支未来的方式生活在这个星球上 资源将会很快被我们所耗尽 但是如果我们换个方式思考 我想我们可以拥有的不仅仅是 零排放的城市 我们还拥有着无限的可能
Thank you very much.
非常感谢
(Applause)
(掌声)