You've all seen lots of articles on climate change, and here's yet another New York Times article, just like every other darn one you've seen. It says all the same stuff as all the other ones you've seen. It even has the same amount of headline as all the other ones you've seen. What's unusual about this one, maybe, is that it's from 1953. And the reason I'm saying this is that you may have the idea this problem is relatively recent. That people have just sort of figured out about it, and now with Kyoto and the Governator and people beginning to actually do something, we may be on the road to a solution. The fact is -- uh-uh. We've known about this problem for 50 years, depending on how you count it. We have talked about it endlessly over the last decade or so. And we've accomplished close to zip.
大家都读过很多有关气候变化的文章, 现在给大家展示的这篇文章源于《纽约时报》, 和你们之前看到的大同小异。 文章的内容和你们原来看的没什么两样。 小标题的数量都一模一样。 那这篇文章又有什么独特之处呢?可能是它写于1953年吧。 我之所以这么说 是因为你们以为气候问题只是最近才提出来的。 人们这些年才开始意识到气候变化这一问题, 而且,人们开始真正采取行动,比如签订《京都议定书》,以及加州州长(施瓦辛格)的环保倡议, 我们好像已经上路了。 事实上是:哼哼,还早着呢。 人类意识到这个问题已经有50年了,时间要看你怎么算。 过去的十几年里我们不断地讨论这个问题。 但是我们解决的问题几乎等于0。
This is the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. You've seen this in various forms, but maybe you haven't seen this one. What this shows is that the rate of growth of our emissions is accelerating. And that it's accelerating even faster than what we thought was the worst case just a few years back. So that red line there was something that a lot of skeptics said the environmentalists only put in the projections to make the projections look as bad as possible, that emissions would never grow as fast as that red line. But in fact, they're growing faster.
这张图表反映的是大气中二氧化碳含量上升的情况。 大家已经看过各式各样反映二氧化碳含量上升的表格, 但是你们可能还没有见过这样的一个表格。 这张表格反映的是我们的排放量在增加, 而且,增加的速度甚至比我们 前几年想的最坏情况还要快。 红线显示的是很多怀疑论者所持的观点,他们认为 环境学家提出这些问题 是想把问题弄得看起来尽可能糟。 他们认为排放量绝不会有红线显示得那么快。 但是事实上,排放量增长得比红线还快。
Here's some data from actually just 10 days ago, which shows this year's minimum of the Arctic Sea ice, and it's the lowest by far. And the rate at which the Arctic Sea ice is going away is a lot quicker than models. So despite all sorts of experts like me flying around the planet and burning jet fuel, and politicians signing treaties -- in fact, you could argue the net effect of all this has been negative, because it's just consumed a lot of jet fuel. (Laughter) No, no! In terms of what we really need to do to put the brakes on this very high inertial thing -- our big economy -- we've really hardly started. Really, we're doing this, basically. Really, not very much.
这里有一些10天前的数据, 这些数据显示了今年北冰洋的最小冰量,这也是有史以来的最小值。 北冰洋冰块融化速度比预想的要快。 尽管各行各业的专家像我一样成天飞来飞去, 飞机也耗了不少油,政治家也在签署各项条约, 实际上你们可能发现最终结果是负面的, 因为我们浪费了很多飞机燃料。(笑) 不,不!我们现在真正要做的是把刹车片放到 我们庞大的经济体上——这个家伙惯性很大——我们过去就几乎没有真正启动过。 事实上我们在行动。但成果不大。
I don't want to depress you too much. The problem is absolutely soluble, and even soluble in a way that's reasonably cheap. Cheap meaning sort of the cost of the military, not the cost of medical care. Cheap meaning a few percent of GDP. No, this is really important to have this sense of scale. So the problem is soluble, and the way we should go about solving it is, say, dealing with electricity production, which causes something like 43-or-so percent and rising of CO2 emissions. And we could do that by perfectly sensible things like conservation, and wind power, nuclear power and coal to CO2 capture, which are all things that are ready for giant scale deployment, and work. All we lack is the action to actually spend the money to put those into place. Instead, we spend our time talking.
我不想太打击你们。 问题是绝对可以解决的,而且解决的方式很便宜。 我说“便宜”指的是相对于军费开销,而不是动用医疗保险的资金。 “便宜”指的是占用很少一部分GDP。 有这样的概念非常重要。 问题是可以解决的,我们要解决的问题,比如说 是发电 发电产生的二氧化碳占到了43%左右,也导致二氧化碳排放量的上升。 我们解决这一问题的方法很多也很完美,比如说节约、 利用风能、核能,从而降低因烧煤而带来的二氧化碳。 但是上述的方法都需要调配大量的人员和安排大量的工作。 我们缺少的是投入资金把上述方案付诸行动。 我们只是在空谈。
But nevertheless, that's not what I'm going to talk to you about tonight. What I'm going to talk to you about tonight is stuff we might do if we did nothing. And it's this stuff in the middle here, which is what you do if you don't stop the emissions quickly enough. And you need to deal -- somehow break the link between human actions that change climate, and the climate change itself. And that's particularly important because, of course, while we can adapt to climate change -- and it's important to be honest here, there will be some benefits to climate change. Oh, yes, I think it's bad. I've spent my whole life working to stop it. But one of the reasons it's politically hard is there are winners and losers -- not all losers. But, of course, the natural world, polar bears. I spent time skiing across the sea ice for weeks at a time in the high Arctic. They will completely lose. And there's no adaption.
但是这不是今晚我要和你们讨论的话题。 今晚我打算和大家说的是如果我们过去无所作为现在还能做什么。 如果你们不很快地停止排放 那中间显示的就是大家可以做的。 大家要解决的就是——如何打破造成气候变化的人类活动与 气候变化本身的联系。这一点非常重要, 与此同时我们也能适应气候变化。 老实说——气候变化也会带来一些好处。 当然我本人认为气候变化很糟,所以我花毕生精力来阻止情况继续恶化。 但是我们面临一个两难的问题是总要有赢家和输家——不全是输家。 但是当然,大自然的一些动物,比如说北极熊又有新的问题: (我曾经花了几个星期在北极高处的冰川上滑雪) 北极熊会彻底输掉, 因为北极上不会有生物适应。
So this problem is absolutely soluble. This geo-engineering idea, in it's simplest form, is basically the following. You could put signed particles, say sulfuric acid particles -- sulfates -- into the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, where they'd reflect away sunlight and cool the planet. And I know for certain that that will work. Not that there aren't side effects, but I know for certain it will work. And the reason is, it's been done. And it was done not by us, not by me, but by nature.
但是,如我说讲的,气候变化是肯定可以解决的。 答案就是地球工程学的思想,简单地说,就是如下的观点: 你们可以把带电粒子,比如说硫酸粒子——硫酸盐—— 放入较高的大气层,也就是平流层, 在平流层这些粒子可以反射阳光,帮地球降温。 据我所知,这种方法是肯定有效的。 而且不会有负作用。我为什么这么肯定地说这种方法会成功呢? 理由是:这种方法已经被实践过了。 不是我们做的,也不是我做的,而是大自然做的。
Here's Mount Pinatubo in the early '90s. That put a whole bunch of sulfur in the stratosphere with a sort of atomic bomb-like cloud. The result of that was pretty dramatic. After that, and some previous volcanoes we have, you see a quite dramatic cooling of the atmosphere. So this lower bar is the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, and it heats up after these volcanoes. But you'll notice that in the upper bar, which is the lower atmosphere and the surface, it cools down because we shielded the atmosphere a little bit. There's no big mystery about it. There's lots of mystery in the details, and there's some bad side effects, like it partially destroys the ozone layer -- and I'll get to that in a minute. But it clearly cools down. And one other thing: it's fast. It's really important to say. So much of the other things that we ought to do, like slowing emissions, are intrinsically slow, because it takes time to build all the hardware we need to reduce emissions. And not only that, when you cut emissions, you don't cut concentrations, because concentrations, the amount of CO2 in the air, is the sum of emissions over time. So you can't step on the brakes very quickly. But if you do this, it's quick. And there are times you might like to do something quick.
这是90年代初的皮纳图博火山喷发,产生了有一中类似原子弹爆炸的云 把大量的硫带入了平流层。 结果非常具有戏剧效果。 自从那以后,加上之前的一些火山喷发,你们看 大气层温度惊人的下降。 下面这根线代表较高层的大气层(平流层)的温度 火山爆发后平流层温度上升。 但是请注意上面这根线,代表底层大气的温度 也就是地球表面的温度下降了,因为我们稍微遮盖了一下地球。 其实,这里没有什么大的秘密。 虽然细节上有很多谜团,也有一些负面影响, 比如说可能会部分破坏臭氧层——我待会儿会讲这个问题。 但是很明显的是:温度下降了! 而且,温度改变得很快! 这非常重要。还有很多其他事情我们应该行动, 比如说减少排放量,这本来就是一个很慢的过程 因为我们还要花时间来建各种设备来减少排量。 不仅如此,当你减少排量的时候,你并没有减少浓度。 因为浓度的定义是空气中CO2的总量, 是长期排放的总和。 所以我们不能快速地停下来。 但是如果你们这样做,就会很快。 很多情况下你们都希望能够快速地完成一件事。
Another thing you might wonder about is, does it work? Can you shade some sunlight and effectively compensate for the added CO2, and produce a climate sort of back to what it was originally? And the answer seems to be yes. So here are the graphs you've seen lots of times before. That's what the world looks like, under one particular climate model's view, with twice the amount of CO2 in the air. The lower graph is with twice the amount of CO2 and 1.8 percent less sunlight, and you're back to the original climate. And this graph from Ken Caldeira. It's important to say came, because Ken -- at a meeting that I believe Marty Hoffart was also at in the mid-'90s -- Ken and I stood up at the back of the meeting and said, "Geo-engineering won't work." And to the person who was promoting it said, "The atmosphere's much more complicated." Gave a bunch of physical reasons why it wouldn't do a very good compensation. Ken went and ran his models, and found that it did.
你们可能会担心另外一件事:这个方法有效吗? 真的可以遮挡阳光并且有效地抵消额外的CO2, 而且可以产生一种气候条件去补偿它本来的来源吗? 答案似乎是肯定的。 这些是你们过去看过无数次的表格。 在这样的一种特定的气候模式的观点下,世界看起来总是一样 因为我们的空气中有两倍的CO2总量。 下面的表格显示的是两倍的CO2和不到1.8%的阳光, 现在大家回到了最原始的气候状态。 这张表格来自肯-卡德拉。说明它的来源非常重要,因为 那是在90年代中的一次会议上,马丁·霍弗特也在 肯和我站在会议室后面说, “地球工程学不能解决问题。” 然后他又对推广地球工程学的人说, “大气层远比我们想的复杂。” 然后他又给出了物理学上一大堆理由来说明为什么用上述方法不能很好地补偿。 肯继续证明并且动用了他的模型,结果发现是可以的。
This topic is also old. That report that landed on President Johnson's desk when I was two years old -- 1965. That report, in fact, which had all the modern climate science -- the only thing they talked about doing was geo-engineering. It didn't even talk about cutting emissions, which is an incredible shift in our thinking about this problem. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut emissions. We should, but it made exactly this point. So, in a sense, there's not much new. The one new thing is this essay. So I should say, I guess, that since the time of that original President Johnson report, and the various reports of the U.S. National Academy -- 1977, 1982, 1990 -- people always talked about this idea. Not as something that was foolproof, but as an idea to think about.
这个话题也有些陈旧了。 当年递到约翰逊总统桌子上的那份报告,那时我只有两岁, 1965年 实际上那份报告已经包含了所有现代气候科学知识—— 他们实际上说的唯一一个问题是地球工程学。 甚至没有讨论减排, 这是我们在考虑解决这一问题上思想上难以置信的转变。 我不是说我们不应该减排。 我们应该减排,但是这不是重点。 所以从某种意义上说,并没有什么新东西。 唯一的新东西是这篇文章。 所以我想我应该说,自从约翰逊总统桌上放了那份最初的报道以来, 美国国立研究院的各种各样的报告—— 1977.1982,1990——人们总是在谈论这个观点。 这不是一个万无一失的计划,但这的确是一个值得思考的观点。
But when climate became, politically, a hot topic -- if I may make the pun -- in the last 15 years, this became so un-PC, we couldn't talk about it. It just sunk below the surface. We weren't allowed to speak about it. But in the last year, Paul Crutzen published this essay saying roughly what's all been said before: that maybe, given our very slow rate of progress in solving this problem and the uncertain impacts, we should think about things like this. He said roughly what's been said before. The big deal was he happened to have won the Nobel prize for ozone chemistry. And so people took him seriously when he said we should think about this, even though there will be some ozone impacts. And in fact, he had some ideas to make them go away.
但是当气候成为政治上的热门话题——请允许我用这个双关语—— 在过去15年,气候问题变得不政治正确了,我们不能谈及这一问题。 这个观点也就石沉大海了。我们不允许再谈论这一问题。 但是在去年,保罗·克鲁岑发表了这篇文章, 文章的大概内容和过去大体相同:遮挡的方法可能会让我们在 解决问题时速度放慢,而且有不确定的影响, 但是我们应该从这个角度来考虑这一问题。 他的观点和过去的大体相同。 不同的是鉴于他在臭氧层化学上的研究,他获得了诺贝尔奖 所以当他说我们应该思考这个问题的时候很多人开始重视了, 即使这对臭氧层有所影响。 事实上,他还提出了一些办法来减少,甚至消除,对臭氧层的影响。
There was all sorts of press coverage, all over the world, going right down to "Dr. Strangelove Saves the Earth," from the Economist. And that got me thinking. I've worked on this topic on and off, but not so much technically. And I was actually lying in bed thinking one night. And I thought about this child's toy -- hence, the title of my talk -- and I wondered if you could use the same physics that makes that thing spin 'round in the child's radiometer, to levitate particles into the upper atmosphere and make them stay there. One of the problems with sulfates is they fall out quickly. The other problem is they're right in the ozone layer, and I'd prefer them above the ozone layer. And it turns out, I woke up the next morning, and I started to calculate this. It was very hard to calculate from first principles. I was stumped. But then I found out that there were all sorts of papers already published that addressed this topic because it happens already in the natural atmosphere. So it seems there are already fine particles that are levitated up to what we call the mesosphere, about 100 kilometers up, that already have this effect.
过去全世界有各种各样的新闻报道, 比如说《经济学家》的“奇爱博士拯救地球”。 那篇文章让我思考——我断断续续研究过这个话题, 但是不是非常专研——实际上我就躺在床上想了一晚上。 我也考虑过 小孩的玩具——因此,这就是我演讲的题目—— 我在想我们能不能用那种可以让物质在小孩子的辐射测量仪中旋转起来的同样的物理学原理 把粒子送入高层大气, 并且让粒子一直待在那儿。 硫酸盐的一个问题是他们会很快下落。 另外一个问题是他们就在臭氧层, 我更愿意他们是在臭氧层之上。 第二天早上起来,我就开始计算。 要用基本原理来计算非常困难。我的计算被卡住了。 但是后来我发现已经有各种各样发表了的论文 就是要解决这个问题,因为问题已经在自然的大气层中产生了。 似乎已经有细微的粒子 升到了我们所说的中间层,大约100千米以上—— 而且已经有了这种效应。
I'll tell you very quickly how the effect works. There are a lot of fun complexities that I'd love to spend the whole evening on, but I won't. But let's say you have sunlight hitting some particle and it's unevenly heated. So the side facing the sun is warmer; the side away, cooler. Gas molecules that bounce off the warm side bounce away with some extra velocity because it's warm. And so you see a net force away from the sun. That's called the photophoretic force. There are a bunch of other versions of it that I and some collaborators have thought about how to exploit. And of course, we may be wrong -- this hasn't all been peer reviewed, we're in the middle of thinking about it -- but so far, it seems good. But it looks like we could achieve long atmospheric lifetimes -- much longer than before -- because they're levitated. We can move things out of the stratosphere into the mesosphere, in principle solving the ozone problem. I'm sure there will be other problems that arise. Finally, we could make the particles migrate to over the poles, so we could arrange the climate engineering so it really focused on the poles. Which would have minimal bad impacts in the middle of the planet, where we live, and do the maximum job of what we might need to do, which is cooling the poles in case of planetary emergency, if you like.
我会很快地告诉你们这种效应是如何产生的。 这里面有很多很有趣的复杂理论 我可以花整个晚上来讲这个问题,但是我没有那么多时间。 设想:阳光照在这些粒子上,而且受热不均 所以面对太阳的一面要暖和些,背对太阳的一面要凉快些。 暖和的一面反射大气分子, 因为那面要热一些,速度又会更快。 所以产生一种和太阳能相反的力, 叫做光泳力。 我和其他合作者还想了很多其他版本的解释 我们思考过如何开发出来。 当然,我们可能错了—— 这些都还没有完完全全审核过,我们还在思考—— 但是到目前为止看起来还不错。 但是看起来我们已经可以延长环境寿命了—— 比过去长很多——因为他们被送上了大气层。 我们也可以把这些物质从同温层送到中间圈, 理论上可以解决臭氧空洞的问题。 我敢肯定这又会引发其他一些问题。 最后,我们可以让微粒移动到极地上空, 这样的话我们就可以把环境工程的问题集中在地球两极。 这一举措会对我们居住的地球中部地区产生最小的副作用, 因为地球中部是我们主要生活和工作的地方。 而且,这一举措可以预防地球的各种不测带来的影响,给两极降温。
This is a new idea that's crept up that may be, essentially, a cleverer idea than putting sulfates in. Whether this idea is right or some other idea is right, I think it's almost certain we will eventually think of cleverer things to do than just putting sulfur in. That if engineers and scientists really turned their minds to this, it's amazing how we can affect the planet. The one thing about this is it gives us extraordinary leverage. This improved science and engineering will, whether we like it or not, give us more and more leverage to affect the planet, to control the planet, to give us weather and climate control -- not because we plan it, not because we want it, just because science delivers it to us bit by bit, with better knowledge of the way the system works and better engineering tools to effect it.
这个一时心血来潮想出来的办法, 或许比放硫酸盐还要好。 不管这个办法或者是其他的办法是否行得通, 我认为我们最终肯定能 想出比放硫更好的办法。 如果工程师和科学家致力于此, 我们将会奇迹般地改造我们的地球。 我们从中获得的是一个广阔的平台。 无论我们喜欢与否,先进的科学和工程学会 提供给我们越来越多的机会去改变我们的地球。 掌控地球。 让我们控制天气和气候——这不是因为我们打算这么做, 也不是因为我们想要这么做,只是因为科学一步步地在把掌控权送到我们手中。 当然也少不了对系统工作原理的深入了解 和更好的工程学工具的帮助。
Now, suppose that space aliens arrived. Maybe they're going to land at the U.N. headquarters down the road here, or maybe they'll pick a smarter spot -- but suppose they arrive and they give you a box. And the box has two knobs. One knob is the knob for controlling global temperature. Maybe another knob is a knob for controlling CO2 concentrations. You might imagine that we would fight wars over that box. Because we have no way to agree about where to set the knobs. We have no global governance. And different people will have different places they want it set. Now, I don't think that's going to happen. It's not very likely.
大家试想一下外星人来了—— 他们可能打算在联合国总部着陆, 他们也有可能降落到一个更高明的地方—— 但是就设想他们到了之后给你一个盒子。 这个盒子有两个旋钮: 第一个可以控制全球气温, 或许第二个可以控制CO2的浓度。 可以想象我们会为那个盒子打得不可开交。 因为我们没法就控制哪个旋钮达成一致, 我们没有国际性政府。 而且每个人对于用哪个旋钮都有自己的想法。 我认为这不大可能发生。
But we're building that box. The scientists and engineers of the world are building it piece by piece, in their labs. Even when they're doing it for other reasons. Even when they're thinking they're just working on protecting the environment. They have no interest in crazy ideas like engineering the whole planet. They develop science that makes it easier and easier to do. And so I guess my view on this is not that I want to do it -- I do not -- but that we should move this out of the shadows and talk about it seriously. Because sooner or later, we'll be confronted with decisions about this, and it's better if we think hard about it, even if we want to think hard about reasons why we should never do it.
但是我们在制造那个盒子。 各国的科学家和工程师们在他们的实验室里 在一点点地建造盒子。 他们可能这么做的初衷不是为此。 他们的想法可能是他们只是在努力保护环境。 他们对像控制地球一类的疯狂想法毫无兴趣。 他们的努力让这些疯狂的想法更加容易得以实现。 所以对于这个问题我的观点,不是我想去这么做——我不想—— 但是我们应该摆脱思想的束缚,来好好探讨这个问题。 因为过不了多久我们就会面临这样一个抉择, 所以我们最好现在就好好想这个问题, 即使我们想思考为什么不可以做的原因。
I'll give you two different ways to think about this problem that are the beginning of my thinking about how to think about it. But what we need is not just a few oddballs like me thinking about this. We need a broader debate. A debate that involves musicians, scientists, philosophers, writers, who get engaged with this question about climate engineering and think seriously about what its implications are. So here's one way to think about it, which is that we just do this instead of cutting emissions because it's cheaper. I guess the thing I haven't said about this is, it is absurdly cheap. It's conceivable that, say, using the sulfates method or this method I've come up with, you could create an ice age at a cost of .001 percent of GDP. It's very cheap. We have a lot of leverage. It's not a good idea, but it's just important. (Laughter) I'll tell you how big the lever is: the lever is that big. And that calculation isn't much in dispute. You might argue about the sanity of it, but the leverage is real. (Laughter)
我来抛砖引玉地讲两种思考这个问题的方法 但这只是思考这个问题的开始。 我们不仅需要像我这样的几个怪胎来思考这个问题—— 我们还需要更广泛地讨论。 一场音乐家,科学家,哲学家,作家都参与的大辩论 只要是把这个问题和气候工程学联系起来, 并且仔细想过这所产生的影响即可。 有这么一种思维方式, 相比而言,这个方法比减排要便宜得多,我们只用照着做就行了。 我上面漏掉的一点是,这个方法真的很便宜。 比如说,运用我想到的硫颗粒的办法或者是刚刚说的措施, 你可以只用GDP的十万分之一来造出一个冰河世纪,这是完全有可能的。 这非常便宜。我们有很多优势。 刚刚我讲的不是一个好主意,但是很重要。 我马上会告诉大家这种方法所达到的效果有多明显。 而且计算的结果没有太大的分歧。 你可能会怀疑我大脑是否清醒,但是事实就是如此。(笑)
So because of this, we could deal with the problem simply by stopping reducing emissions, and just as the concentrations go up, we can increase the amount of geo-engineering. I don't think anybody takes that seriously. Because under this scenario, we walk further and further away from the current climate. We have all sorts of other problems, like ocean acidification that come from CO2 in the atmosphere, anyway. Nobody but maybe one or two very odd folks really suggest this.
所以因为这一点,我们可以 只依靠减排来解决问题。 随着CO2浓度升高,我们也可以加强 地球工程学的应用。 我认为不是所有人都当真。 因为在这种大背景下,我们干的事和解决当前气候问题 越来越远。 我们也还面临着其他各种各样的问题,比如说海水酸化, 而罪魁祸首是大气中的CO2。 可能也就一两个怪人认为这个方法可行。
But here's a case which is harder to reject. Let's say that we don't do geo-engineering, we do what we ought to do, which is get serious about cutting emissions. But we don't really know how quickly we have to cut them. There's a lot of uncertainty about exactly how much climate change is too much. So let's say that we work hard, and we actually don't just tap the brakes, but we step hard on the brakes and really reduce emissions and eventually reduce concentrations. And maybe someday -- like 2075, October 23 -- we finally reach that glorious day where concentrations have peaked and are rolling down the other side. And we have global celebrations, and we've actually started to -- you know, we've seen the worst of it. But maybe on that day we also find that the Greenland ice sheet is really melting unacceptably fast, fast enough to put meters of sea level on the oceans in the next 100 years, and remove some of the biggest cities from the map. That's an absolutely possible scenario. We might decide at that point that even though geo-engineering was uncertain and morally unhappy, that it's a lot better than not geo-engineering. And that's a very different way to look at the problem. It's using this as risk control, not instead of action. It's saying that you do some geo-engineering for a little while to take the worst of the heat off, not that you'd use it as a substitute for action.
我们不能回避这样一个问题。 这样来说吧,如果我们不从地球工程学的角度解决问题,按常规方法出牌, 也就是说把重心放在减排上。 但是我们真的不知道我们得多快才行。 至于气候变化的速度有多快还是个未知数。 如果真要走减排这条路,我们要做的不仅仅是轻踩刹车, 我们应该急刹,真正做到减排, 最后达到降低CO2浓度的目的 。 或许有朝一日——打个比方,2075年10月23日—— 当那一天来临时,CO2浓度达到最高值, 开始往下降。 全球可能都得开一回庆功宴。 当然,我们也做了最坏的打算。 或许到那天我们发现格林兰岛的冰盖 在融化,而且速度非常之快,快到在未来100年内 把海平面提高几米, 快到可以把一些大城市从地图上抹掉。 这一幕完全有可能出现。 我们可以这么来看,即使在运用地球工程学过程中有很多不确定因素, 人们也一时难以接受,但是也总比不用的好。 如果这样来看这个问题,事情就会大不一样。 实质上这是风险控制,不是代替其他措施。 也就是说你应用地球工程学做点事情,为地球降温, 而不是说把地球工程学当成其他措施的替代品。
But there is a problem with that view. And the problem is the following: knowledge that geo-engineering is possible makes the climate impacts look less fearsome, and that makes a weaker commitment to cutting emissions today. This is what economists call a moral hazard. And that's one of the fundamental reasons that this problem is so hard to talk about, and, in general, I think it's the underlying reason that it's been politically unacceptable to talk about this. But you don't make good policy by hiding things in a drawer.
但是这样看也会有个问题。 产生的问题如下: “地球工程学可以解决全球变暖”的观点 使得人们对气候变化没有了危机感。 那样就会减弱大家对减排的责任感。 这就是经济学家所说的道德风险。 这也是为什么这个问题如何难以被讨论的根本原因之一, 而且我觉得这也正是 政治上不愿意提及这个问题的潜在原因。 但把事情藏起来并不能制定出好的政策。
I'll leave you with three questions, and then one final quote. Should we do serious research on this topic? Should we have a national research program that looks at this? Not just at how you would do it better, but also what all the risks and downsides of it are. Right now, you have a few enthusiasts talking about it, some in a positive side, some in a negative side -- but that's a dangerous state to be in because there's very little depth of knowledge on this topic. A very small amount of money would get us some. Many of us -- maybe now me -- think we should do that. But I have a lot of reservations. My reservations are principally about the moral hazard problem, and I don't really know how we can best avoid the moral hazard. I think there is a serious problem: as you talk about this, people begin to think they don't need to work so hard to cut emissions.
最后,我提三个问题和一个引用的话作为结尾。 第一个问题:我们是否应该认真的研究这个问题? 第二个问题:我们是否应该启动一个国家级的研究项目来探讨这个问题? 并不单单讨论如何做得更好, 还研究它可能产生的风险和不足。 现在我们只有少数热衷者在讨论这个问题,部分人持正面态度, 部分人持负面态度。但这正是一个极危险的处境, 因为关于这个问题深入的认识太少了。 现在只需要少量的投入,就可以得到一些研究成果。 很多人——也许现在是我——认为我们应该这么做, 但我也有很多疑虑, 主要是关于道德风险的问题, 我真的想不出来如何避免道德风险。 我想这的确是一个很严重的问题, 因为人们会觉得更本没有必要那么努力地减排(地球工程学可以解决问题)。
Another thing is, maybe we need a treaty. A treaty that decides who gets to do this. Right now we may think of a big, rich country like the U.S. doing this. But it might well be that, in fact, if China wakes up in 2030 and realizes that the climate impacts are just unacceptable, they may not be very interested in our moral conversations about how to do this, and they may just decide they'd really rather have a geo-engineered world than a non-geo-engineered world. And we'll have no international mechanism to figure out who makes the decision.
第三个问题是:也许我们需要制定一个条约, 来决定这项任务由谁来完成。 现在我们可能认为像美国这样富有的大国应该去做, 但事实上,也许中国在2030年认识到 气候影响已经到了不可接受的地步, 而且他们可能没有我们这样的道德保守, 他们可能就决定更愿要一个地球工程学改造过的世界 而不是一个没有地球工程学的世界。 到那时,我们会发现根本没有一套国际机制来决定谁来做最后的决定。
So here's one last thought, which was said much, much better 25 years ago in the U.S. National Academy report than I can say today. And I think it really summarizes where we are here. That the CO2 problem, the climate problem that we've heard about, is driving lots of things -- innovations in the energy technologies that will reduce emissions -- but also, I think, inevitably, it will drive us towards thinking about climate and weather control, whether we like it or not. And it's time to begin thinking about it, even if the reason we're thinking about it is to construct arguments for why we shouldn't do it. Thank you very much.
结束演讲前我还有最后一个观点, 这个观点在25年前的美国国家工程院的报告中就已经讲得很清楚了, 我想它能够很好的概括我今天的演讲。 “我们所听到的气候问题,CO2问题, 正在推动很多能源技术的创新 来减少排放。” 但是,我想它也会毋庸置疑地推动我们思考 关于气候和天气控制的问题,不管我们喜欢与否。 我想是时候开始思考这个问题了, 即便只是为了找理由 证明我们为什么不能做。 谢谢。