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.
全球氣候變遷已是個沉重的話題, 並有愈加沉重之勢, 因為我們開始意識到 我們現在所做的努力還遠遠不夠。 事實上,我們開始意識到 生活在發達國家的我們 需要努力減少廢氣排放。 而这想法,說得婉轉些,还未被列入議程。 當我們著眼於現今的實際面 和當前的艱巨難題, 心头便被不安和彷徨籠罩。 而當我們面對問題不知所措時 就容易「頭痛醫頭,腳痛醫腳」。 我認為我們處理氣候變化的方式就是這樣。 我們環顧四周尋找廢氣排放的源頭 —— 它們從排氣管中來,從工廠煙囪里來…… 然後我們就斷言,好了,病灶發現嘍 廢氣就來自那些礦物燃料, 所以呢,要解決這個問題, 就把那些礦物燃料替換成清潔能源好了。 而此時,當然啦,我們又確實需要綠色能源, 但我想告訴你們, 若單是認為使用綠色能源 便能解決氣候變遷的問題, 我們是在作繭自縛, 別指望解決問題。
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.
因為 我們寄居的這個星球 其都市化進程相當迅猛。 或許這對大家來說是老調重彈。 但有時候,大家對於 都市化所能達到的程度沒有概念。 再過50年, 將有大約80億人口——也許更多—— 生活在城市或者與城市相隔不出一天車程的地方。 屆時我們將成為一個難以被駕馭的「城市兵團」。 為了 讓那八十億人的日子 過得 有那麼丁點兒 像當今北半球城里人的影子, 我們都必須生產 數量十分驚人的能源。 而且很可能 我們無法製造出 那樣多的清潔能源。 因此如果我們真的希望在城市化進程中 探討應對大氣變遷的方案的話, 我們需要改變視角,另闢蹊徑。
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.
而那個我們夢寐以求的方案,可能比我們想像的要來得容易。 因為那些處於雛形階段的城市 都是我們的機會。 每一個城市在很大程度上 都決定了其居民所消耗的能源量。 我們習慣性地認為自己可以主觀控制能源的消耗—— 譬如「是我想把這燈打開」—— 但事實上,有很大一部份能源的消耗 是由 我們居住的社區、城市決定的。 我今天不打算向你們展示很多圖表, 但面前的這一張值得大家關注, 圖中有一些我們應該瞭解的訊息—— 很明顯, 就拿圖表上「交通工具」—— 即大氣廢物的主要排放源——來說, 一個城市 其人口、建施的密度 與其居民製造的排放物之間 有著直接聯繫。 這關聯,從圖上可以看出, 即是:密度越大,其排放物反而愈少—— 仔細想想,這其實也不難理解。
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.
平時生活中, 我們為得到自己想要的東西 而驅車數里。 一出門我們就坐上車, 穿梭于一個又一個地點間。 基本上,我們做什麽都離不開車。 但倘若我們居住在一個較密集的社區, 突然間,我們會發現, 那些我們需要的東西近在咫尺。 而且最划算的旅行 就是「呆在原地打轉兒」, 突然間,我們會發現日子過得更加經濟划算了。 而當然了, 提高社區的密度是完全有可能的。
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.
一些地方已經開始試行生態區了, 他們正在那裡打造一種全新的可持續發展的社區模式, 如果你能理解,便知道這樣做的好處。 但大多數時候,我們所討論的是, 如何重新雕琢城市的肌理。 因此我們所關注的是諸如「填充式開發」這類問題: 這意味著我們不會對 現有的房屋和正在開發中的地段做大幅度改動。 對城市進行翻新: 即在現有的條件下 再額外開發一些多功能的空間。 越來越多的人開始認識到 我們沒必要將城市每一個角落的密度都加大。 我們需要做的只是將整座城市的 平均密度提升到一個水平 從而使我們不必像現在這樣依賴汽車。 而要實現以上的目標 只需要大幅度提升某一些特定場所的密度即可。 你可以把這想像成 是一些帳篷杆將整個城市的密度撐高了。
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.
而當我們真的這樣做時, 我們就會發現,其實在一個 相較寬鬆、令人舒服的大環境中, 哪怕只有少部份具有高密度的空間, 我們也可以獲得相同的成效。 但現在我們可能會發現有些空間的密度已經相當高了, 但人們還是沒有擯棄汽車, 其實,總的來說,情況是這樣的, 當我們在適宜的條件下將人口分佈安排得更加緊湊時, 接下來便會產生「門檻效應(threshold effect)」, 這時人們一開始是變得「不那麼依賴車」, 爾後,當越來越多的人 被有著家一般感覺的環境所包圍時, 他們就會「戒掉」汽車。 而這將節約大量的能源。 因為從我們的尾氣管中所排放出的 還僅僅是汽車所產生的 大氣污染物的一小部份。 我們還必須處理汽車的生產和報廢, 大量的停車場和高速公路等等。 而當一些人完全不依賴這些事物時, 我們就可以擺脫它們的影響, 這時你將發現,你已經將交通工具產生的污染物 減少了90%
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.
並且,人們很高興能遠離汽車。 我們可以看到,全世界越來越多的人開始崇尚步行生活。 人們都說,那感覺相當于從小小理想之家 搬到到了一個大的理想社區 若將理想之家置入理想社區 加上便捷的交通網絡, 你就會發現,實際上, 我們能獲得的東西變多了。 而其中一部份就是新的交通方式和路线。 這是一張Mapnificent網路地圖,它指示出(譯者注:Mapnificent為應用軟體) 從我家出發,借助於公共交通工具, 30分鐘之內我能抵達的地方。 當然其中有些地方是按步行來算的。這軟體尚未臻完美。 這張是來自「Google 步行地圖( Google Walking Maps)」。 我用它來查尋到Great Ridgeway的路線, 而它告訴我應該從格恩西島(Guernsey)走。 它還告訴我這條路線 可能沒有人行道。 (笑) 但科技總在進步, 我們開始擴充導航系統的資料 而正如我們早先知道的, 我們學著在「不會說話的東西」上標注信息。 對沒有任何電線嵌套的東西 我們也學著將之納入 符號和導航的系統。
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.
這也讓我們發現, 我們所認為的 生產與消耗 的重點 只是『得到一堆的東西』, 而不是, 如何能讓我們在密集環境中獲得最優質的生活。 我們還發現,其實我們一直想要得到的 也只是能物盡其用而已。 我最喜歡拿鑽孔機為例。在座的觀眾誰有家用式鑽孔機啊? 好,我也有一台。 在家用鑽孔機的一生中,其平均被使用的時間 是6到20分鐘, 具體多久則因人而異。 因此我們所做的是將這些 本可以工作上千個小時的鑽孔機回家, 爾後只用來打一兩個洞,就置之不理了。 而我們的城市,我可以告訴你們, 就儲滿了諸如此類的剩餘能量。 而當我們嘗試著 開發鑽孔機的新功能時—— 譬如說用來炒菜,用來雕冰 或者是用來做兇器—— 我們可能會發現 其實,更為聰明的辦法是 將這些產品的功能多元化, 以便我們需要的時候使用。
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.
而事實上,就算是單一空間本身也是一個多功能體。 我們發現人們可以共享同一個空間, 可以在空置的地方做任何事情。 建築已經開始具有多種功能了。 因此我們的新設計 旨在將那些曾經需要消耗人為能源的機械工作—— 諸如加熱,冷卻等等—— 轉化為不需要消耗人為能源的工作。 這樣一來,我們得以用日光照明。 以自然風來降溫,以太陽能來加熱。 而當我們採用這些形式的能源時, 就會發現,在某些情況下, 一幢建築物所消耗的人為能源能降低90%。 這就帶來下一個「門檻效應(threshold effect)」 我也把它叫做「火爐再見(furnace dumping)」。 這理解起來很簡單, 就是如果你的屋子不需要爐子來提供熱能的話, 你就相當于省了一大筆錢。 而就算將這筆錢用在自然能源的採集上, 那也還是有富餘。
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.
那麼現在我們已經可以 大幅度削減物品消耗,削減交通工具的使用頻率, 削減建築物能源的消耗量, 能做到這樣確實很棒,但仍有一些要素被遺漏了。 而倘若我們真想讓城市可持續發展, 我們就需要轉換一下思維。 這裡展示的便是其中一種模式。 這是溫哥華(Vancouver)為其綠色城市所做的宣傳。 而顯然,很多人都認為 一個可持續發展的城市是披滿了綠色植物的。 由此我們就看到了這樣的景象。 這樣的景象,還有
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?
這樣的景象。當然這都是些不錯的企劃, 但他們真的忽略了一個要點。 那即是不管高層的綠化做得多麼好, 真正的影響則來自下面的設施。 譬如說,是否收集雨水 以便節約水資源? 水的消耗量可謂巨大。 是否包含環保基礎建設, 可讓我們將徑流 與生活用水進行 淨化並過濾 和澆灌街邊樹木? 這些設施能否維繫我們與周圍的生態系統, 譬如,讓我們容易接近川流 並容許河川復育嗎? 這些工程是否考慮到了『授粉』, 是否有專門之途徑 將傳播花粉的昆蟲引進我們的城市? 工程中有沒有將那些廢棄物, 那些來自食物和纖維等物品的廢棄物, 收集起來并回歸土壤, 在城市運轉當中, 有沒有進行固碳—— 以減少大氣中碳元素的含量?
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.
我想告訴大家,以上所說的都不是紙上談兵, 它們現在正被落實中, 這是再好不過了。 因為此時,大體來看我們的經濟運作方式 就像保羅•霍肯(Paul Hawken)說的那樣, 「竊取未來,揮霍於今日 此即國內生產毛額(GDP)。」 而如果再增加80億 或者70億, 甚至哪怕只是60億人口 居住在這樣一個佈滿「竊取未來資源」的城市的星球上, 未來的資源將很快被我們消耗殆盡。 但如果我們將思維轉換一下, 我認為,在現實生活中, 我們不僅能打造零污染的的城市, 而且還將擁有無限的「可能」。
Thank you very much.
謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)