I'm really scared. I don't think we're going to make it. Probably by now most of you have seen Al Gore's amazing talk. Shortly after I saw that, we had some friends over for dinner with the family. The conversation turned to global warming, and everybody agreed, there's a real problem. We've got a climate crisis. So, we went around the table to talk about what we should do. The conversation came to my 15-year-old daughter, Mary. She said, "I agree with everything that's been said. I'm scared and I'm angry." And then she turned to me and said, "Dad, your generation created this problem; you'd better fix it." Wow. All the conversation stopped. All the eyes turned to me. (Laughter) I didn't know what to say. Kleiner's second law is, "There is a time when panic is the appropriate response." (Laughter) And we've reached that time. We cannot afford to underestimate this problem. If we face irreversible and catastrophic consequences, we must act, and we must act decisively. I've got to tell you, for me, everything changed that evening.
我真的害怕, 我不認為我們能渡過的 目前為止, 大部分的你們都已聽過Al Gore的精采演講 就在我看過後不久, 我們有一些朋友來家裡晚餐 話題來到了全球暖化 大家都同意那是個真實問題 我們遭遇到氣候危機了 所以沿著餐桌, 我們輪流提出能做的事 輪到我15歲的女兒, Mary 她說: "我贊同大家所說的每件事 我感到害怕與憤怒" 然後她轉向我說: "爸, 你們這一代製造了這個問題, 妳最好解決它" 哇~ 所有的對話暫停下來, 所有的眼睛轉向我 (笑聲) 我並不知道如何接話 而Kleiner的第二定律是: "總會有那樣的時候當慌亂無方是適當的反應" (笑聲) 我們已到那地步了 我們不能再低估了 當我們面對不可逆轉與巨大災害的結果 我們就該行動 就該立即行動 得向你們坦白, 對我而言, 每件事從那晚開始都不一樣了
And so, my partners and I, we set off on this mission to learn more, to try to do much more. So, we mobilized. We got on airplanes. We went to Brazil. We went to China and to India, to Bentonville, Arkansas, to Washington, D.C. and to Sacramento. And so, what I'd like to do now is to tell you about what we've learned in those journeys. Because the more we learned, the more concerned we grew. You know, my partners at Kleiner and I were compulsive networkers, and so when we see a big problem or an opportunity like avian flu or personalized medicine, we just get together the smartest people we know. For this climate crisis, we assembled a network, really, of superstars, from policy activists to scientists and entrepreneurs and business leaders. Fifty or so of them. And so, I want to tell you about what we've learned in doing that and four lessons I've learned in the last year.
因此, 我的合夥人和我, 訂下任務去了解更多 也試著作更多。所以我們開始行動, 上了飛機 去了巴西, 去了中國, 去了印度 去了Bentonville, 阿肯薩司州, 去了華盛頓特區, 去了Sacramento, 加州 所以要向大家說明 從這些拜訪我們學到了些什麼 因為越是更了解, 我們越是更煩惱 你也知道的, 我的Kleiner夥伴與我都是不由自主的人際網絡工作者 所以當我們看到一個大問題或是大機會 像是禽流感或是個人化醫藥 我們就會集合我們所認識最聰明的人 我們也真的對這氣候問題集合了一個專家網絡 都是一流人選, 從政治行動主義者 到科學家與企業家 商業領袖 等共50人左右 因此, 我要向大家報告實作後的所學 四個去年所學的經驗教訓
The first lesson is that companies are really powerful, and that matters a lot. This is a story about how Wal-Mart went green, and what that means. Two years ago, the CEO, Lee Scott, believed that green is the next big thing, and so Wal-Mart made going green a top priority. They committed that they're going to take their existing stores and reduce their energy consumption by 20 percent, and their new stores by 30 percent, and do all that in seven years. The three biggest uses of energy in a store are heating and air conditioning, then lighting, and then refrigeration. So, look what they did. They painted the roofs of all their stores white. They put smart skylights through their stores so they could harvest the daylight and reduce the lighting demands. And, third, they put the refrigerated goods behind closed doors with LED lighting. I mean, why would you try to refrigerate a whole store? These are really simple, smart solutions based on existing technology.
第一個是私人公司是能力驚人的 也影響巨大。這是個故事關於 沃爾瑪超市加入綠色行列 以及其背後意義 兩年前, 其執行長 Lee Scott, 相信綠色概念是 下一件大事, 所以沃爾瑪超市將投入綠色工作當成當務之急 他們承諾將針對既有的超市 減少耗能20% 新的超市是30%, 將以7年時間達成 而超市內三項最大的耗電應用分別是 空調, 接著是 照明, 再是冷凍 來看看他們怎麼做的 他們將所有的屋頂漆成了白色 他們全面採用追日型的天光窗 所以可以充分利用天光, 減少電力照明的需求 第三, 他們將冷藏食品放入 有LED照明的冷藏門內 (不再是開放式了) 我想說的是 我們為什麼要冷藏這整個超市呢? 這些都是非常簡單與聰明的解決方案, 使用現有的技術
Why does Wal-Mart matter? Well, it's massive. They're the largest private employer in America. They're the largest private user of electricity. They have the second-largest vehicle fleet on the road. And they have one of the world's most amazing supply chains, 60,000 suppliers. If Wal-Mart were a country, it would be the sixth-largest trading partner with China. And maybe most important, they have a big effect on other companies.
沃爾瑪超市做了又怎樣? 嗯, 就是大量 他們是美國最大的私有企業 他們是最大的私人電力消費者 他們有著第二大的陸上運輸車隊 他們有著世上最佳的供應鏈 6萬個供應商。如果沃爾瑪超市是個國家 它就是中國第六大貿易夥伴 更重要的是, 他們對其他公司有著重大影響
When Wal-Mart declares it's going to go green and be profitable, it has a powerful impact on other great institutions. So, let me tell you this: when Wal-Mart achieves 20 percent energy reductions, that's going to be a very big deal. But I'm afraid it's not enough. We need Wal-Mart and every other company to do the same.
當沃爾瑪超市宣示要向綠色發展而且是要能獲利 它對其他企業便有著強力的影響 因此, 讓我告訴大家: 當沃爾瑪超市達成降低20%的能源消耗 會是一件大事情, 但我擔心這是不夠的 我們需要沃爾瑪超市和其他每一個公司都做
The second thing that we learned is that individuals matter, and they matter enormously. I've got another Wal-Mart story for you, OK? Wal-Mart has over 125 million U.S. customers. That's a third of the U.S. population. 65 million compact fluorescent light bulbs were sold last year. And Wal-Mart has committed they're going to sell another 100 million light bulbs in the coming year. But it's not easy. Consumers don't really like these light bulbs. The light's kind of funny, they won't dim, takes a while for them to start up. But the pay-off is really enormous. 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs means that we'll save 600 million dollars in energy bills, and 20 million tons of CO2 every year, year in and year out. It does seem really hard to get consumers to do the right thing. It is stupid that we use two tons of steel, glass and plastic to haul our sorry selves to the shopping mall. It's stupid that we put water in plastic bottles in Fiji and ship it here. (Laughter)
第二件事我們學到的是: 每個個人都是重要的 而且是非常重要 我再繼續沃爾瑪超市的故事, OK? 沃爾瑪超市有1億2千5百萬的美國消費者 是美國1/3的人口數 去年共賣出6千5百萬個省電燈泡 沃爾瑪超市也承諾將於今年賣出 1億個省電燈泡, 這是不容易的 因為大部分的消費者不喜歡這種燈泡 發出的光有些可笑, 不能調弱 又需要些時間啟動 但回收卻是相當可觀的 1億個省電燈泡代表著 我們能每年省下6億美元的電費支出 以及2千萬噸的CO2, 而且每年如此 要讓消費者做對的事情是真的很難的 這是愚蠢的 用了2噸的鋼、玻璃、與 塑膠 拖著我們自己在販賣商場 這是愚蠢的 將水放在塑膠瓶中 從斐濟運到這來 (笑聲)
It's hard to change consumer behavior because consumers don't know how much this stuff costs. Do you know? Do you know how much CO2 you generated to drive here or fly here? I don't know, and I should. Those of us who care about all this would act better if we knew what the real costs were. But as long as we pretend that CO2 is free, as long as these uses are nearly invisible, how can we expect change? I'm really afraid, because I think the kinds of changes we can reasonably expect from individuals are going to be clearly not enough.
要改變消費者行為是難的 因為消費者很難明白這個價錢。你知道嗎? 你知道開車來或是飛來到底產生多少的CO2? 我不知道, 但我應該知道 總是那些在乎的人會有較好的行動 當我們知道確實的代價是什麼 但只要我們以為 CO2是沒成本的 或只要以為沒看到, 那我們如何期待會有所改變呢? 我真的害怕, 因為我認為這種 從每個人出發的改變 是明顯地不夠的
The third lesson we learned is that policy matters. It really matters. In fact, policy is paramount. I've got a behind-the-scenes story for you about that green tech network I described. At the end of our first meeting, we got together to talk about what the action items would be, how we'd follow up. And Bob Epstein raised a hand. He stood up. You know, Bob's that Berkeley techie type who started Sybase. Well, Bob said the most important thing we could do right now is to make it clear in Sacramento, California that we need a market-based system of mandates that's going to cap and reduce greenhouse gases in California. It's necessary and, just as important, it's good for the California economy.
第三個我們學到的經驗是政策是重要的, 真的重要 事實上, 政策是最重要的 我也有個幕後花絮般的故事 有關於先前提到的綠色科技人脈網絡 再我們第一次見面會議之末端, 我們聚在一起討論 行動方案為何 以及後續事項 Bob Epstein 舉起手 並站起來 另外, Bob 是個柏克萊高科技專家, 他成立 Sybase 公司 Bob 當時提出了我們能即時做的事 就是向加州州政府提出 我們需要以市場為基礎的強制規定 用來規範加州溫室氣體的上限與減排目標 這是必須與重要的 對加州經濟也是有助益的
So, eight of us went to Sacramento in August and we met with the seven undecided legislators and we lobbied for AB32. You know what? Six of those seven voted yes in favor of the bill, so it passed, and it passed by a vote of 47 to 32. (Applause) Please. Thank you. I think it's the most important legislation of 2006. Why? Because California was the first state in this country to mandate 25 percent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. And the result of that is, we're going to generate 83,000 new jobs, four billion dollars a year in annual income, and reduce the CO2 emissions by 174 million tons a year. California emits only seven percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. It's only a percent and a half of the country's CO2 emissions. It's a great start, but I've got to tell you -- where I started -- I'm really afraid. In fact, I'm certain California's not enough.
因此 我們8個人於8月前往州政府 向7位尚未決定的立法委員遊說AB32法案 知道嗎? 7人中的6位投下了贊同票 所以法案通過, 是47票比32票的通過 (掌聲) 謝謝 我想這是2006年最重要的法案, 為什麼? 因為加州是美國第一個州 宣示於2020年前將會有25%溫室氣體減量 結果是我們創造了83000個新工作 40億美元的年收入, 每年減少CO2排放 17億4千萬噸 而加州的CO2排放量僅佔全美的7% 所以只是全國1.5%的排放減量, 但是個好的開始 但是我還是得告訴你我一開始的擔憂 事實上, 我能確定即使對加州而言還是不夠的
Here's a story about national policy that we could all learn from. You know Tom Friedman says, "If you don't go, you don't know"? Well, we went to Brazil to meet Dr. Jose Goldemberg. He's the father of the ethanol revolution. He told us that Brazil's government mandated that every gasoline station in the country would carry ethanol. And they mandated that their new vehicles would be flex-fuel compatible, right? They'd run ethanol or ordinary gasoline. And so, here's what's happened in Brazil. They now have 29,000 ethanol pumps -- this versus 700 in the U.S., and a paltry two in California -- and in three years their new car fleet has gone from four percent to 85 percent flex-fuel. Compare that to the U.S.: five percent are flex-fuel. And you know what? Most consumers who have them don't even know it. So, what's happened in Brazil is, they've replaced 40 percent of the gasoline consumed by their automotive fleet with ethanol. That's 59 billion dollars since 1975 that they didn't ship to the Middle East. It's created a million jobs inside that country, and it's saved 32 million tons of CO2. It's really substantial. That's 10 percent of the CO2 emissions across their entire country. But Brazil's only 1.3 percent of the world's CO2 emission. So, Brazil's ethanol miracle, I'm really afraid, is not enough. In fact, I'm afraid all of the best policies we have are not going to be enough.
這又是個我們都能學習的故事, 有關國家政策 Tom Friedman 曾說 "如果你從不曾去, 你不會明瞭的" 我們前去巴西 拜訪 Jose Goldemberg 博士 他被稱為乙醇革命之父 他告訴我們巴西政府強制 每個加油站都需提供乙醇汽油 也規定所有新車 必須是能適用各型式汽油 他們也真的到處可見乙醇與普通汽油 巴西真正發生的是 已經有29000個乙醇加油槍 相較全美僅700個, 而加州更只有為不足道的2個 三年內 巴西的新車 已經是從4% 增加到85% 相較美國 只有5%是能吃雙油品 更扯的是 有這樣車的人 並不清楚有此功能 巴西已經用乙醇取代 汽車原有40%的汽油消耗 從1975年 他們省下原本得送去中東的 中東的590億美元 也創造了100萬個就業機會 也減少了3千2百萬噸的CO2, 這是非常可觀的 是全巴西的10%的排放 但巴西總排放僅佔全球的1.3% 所以巴西的乙醇奇蹟, 我認為還是不夠的 事實上, 就算是所有最好的政策加總起來 還是會不夠的
The fourth and final lesson we've learned is about the potential of radical innovation. So, I want to tell you about a tragic problem and a breakthrough technology. Every year a million and a half people die of a completely preventable disease. That's malaria. 6,000 people a day. All for want of two dollars' worth of medications that we can buy at the corner drugstore. Well, two dollars, two dollars is too much for Africa. So, a team of Berkeley researchers with 15 million dollars from the Gates Foundation is engineering, designing a radical new way to make the key ingredient, called artemisinin, and they're going to make that drug 10 times cheaper. And in doing so, they'll save a million lives -- at least a million lives a year. A million lives. Their breakthrough technology is synthetic biology. This leverages millions of years of evolution by redesigning bugs to make really useful products. Now, what you do is, you get inside the microbe, you change its metabolic pathways, and you end up with a living chemical factory.
第四個, 也是最後一個的經驗 是有關於 顛覆式創新的潛能 所以我要告訴大家一個悲劇問題 以及一個突破的科技 全球每年有150萬人死於 一個可預防的疾病: 瘧疾, 就是每天6000人死亡 就只是缺乏僅僅價值2美元的藥物 而我們在附近的藥店就能買到 兩美元 兩美元對非洲人是奢侈的 柏克萊的團隊得到 Gates Foundation 的 1千5百萬的經費, 以研發設計 一顛覆式的新方法 來製造一個叫"青蒿素" (artemisinin)的關鍵成分 希望能製造出10倍便宜的藥物 做到這樣 他們就能救100萬個生命 至少每年100萬!, 100萬! 他們的突破是合成生物學 縮短百萬年的演化時間 重新設計出一種微生物能生產出有用的產物 作法是 深入到微生物 改變代謝的路徑 而完成一活的化學工廠
Now, you may ask, John, what has this got to go with green and with climate crisis? Well, I'll tell you -- a lot. We've now formed a company called Amyris, and this technology that they're using can be used to make better biofuels. Don't let me skip over that. Better biofuels are a really big deal. That means we can precisely engineer the molecules in the fuel chain and optimize them along the way. So, if all goes well, they're going to have designer bugs in warm vats that are eating and digesting sugars to excrete better biofuels. I guess that's better living through bugs. Alan Kay is famous for saying the best way to predict the future is to invent it. And, of course, at Kleiner we, kind of, apologize and say the second best way is to finance it. And that's why we're investing 200 million dollars in a wide range of really disruptive new technologies for innovation in green technologies. And we're encouraging others to do it as well. We're talking a lot about this.
你或許會問 John, 這和綠色或是氣候有何關係? 我可以告訴你 非常相關 我們已成立一公司叫作Amyris 相通的科技可以被用來製造更好的生物燃料 別讓我漏說了, 更好的生物燃料事件極大的事情 意味著我們能正確的在燃料生產鏈中合成正確分子組成 一路將產物最佳化 如果, 一切順利, 他們能將設計的微生物放進活鼠 那就可以吃及消化糖 再排泄更好的生物燃料 我猜更好的生活能從微生物開始 Alan Kay 相當有名一句話 "最好的方式去預測未來 就是發明未來" 當然, 在Kleiner的我們 得厚臉地說 第二好的方式是去 投資未來 因此 我們正投資2億美元 在各式真正有突破性的科技 作出創新的綠色科技 同時我們也鼓勵其他人如此 我們是四處鼓勵的
In 2005, there were 600 million dollars invested in new technologies of the sort you see here. It doubled in 2006 to 1.2 billion dollars. But I'm really afraid we need much, much more. For reference, fact one: Exxon's revenues in 2005 were a billion dollars a day. Do you know, they only invested 0.2 percent of revenues in R&D? Second fact: the President's new budget for renewable energy is barely a billion dollars in total. Less than one day of Exxon's revenues. Third fact: I bet you didn't know that there's enough energy in hot rocks under the country to supply America's energy needs for the next thousand years. And the federal budget calls for a measly 20 million dollars of R&D in geothermal energy. It is almost criminal that we are not investing more in energy research in this country. And I am really afraid that it's absolutely not enough.
在2005年中, 共有6億美元投資新科技 像這些 在2006年成為兩倍的12億美元 但是我真的擔心我們需要更多更多 參考一下, 事證一: Exxon 於2005年是每天10億美元的營收 你知道嗎? 他們只投資營收的0.2%到研發 事證二: 總統的再生能源新預算 卻總共只有少少的10億美元 小於Exxon一天的營收 事證三: 我猜你們一定不知道 在美國地下的熱岩石就有足夠的能源供全美國使用 數千年, 但是聯邦預算 只投資了2億美元在地熱能源研發 這根本是個罪行, 如果在這個國家 不投資更多 的能源研究 我真的擔心 這些真的還是不夠
So, in a year's worth of learning we found a bunch of surprises. Who would have thought that a mass retailer could make money by going green? Who would have thought that a database entrepreneur could transform California with legislation? Who would have thought that the ethanol biofuel miracle would come from a developing country in South America? And who would have thought that scientists trying to cure malaria could come up with breakthroughs in biofuels? And who would have thought that all that is not enough? Not enough to stabilize the climate. Not enough to keep the ice in Greenland from crashing into the ocean. The scientists tell us -- and they're only guessing -- that we've got to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one half, and do it as fast as possible. Now, we may have the political will to do this in the U.S., but I've got to tell you, we've got only one atmosphere, and so somehow we're going to have to find the political will to do this all around the world. The wild card in this deck is China.
經由一年的學習, 我們也發現不少驚奇 誰會想到一龐大連鎖的超商 因使用綠色科技還能產生利潤? 誰想到 一個資料庫企業能改變加州的立法體系? 誰又會想到乙醇的成功發展是 來自一開發中的南美洲國家? 誰想到致力改善瘧疾 的科學也能用於突破生物燃料? 誰又會想到這些這些減排都還不夠? 還不夠來穩定氣候 還不夠來阻止冰島的冰落入海中 科學家告訴我們 -- 而且還只是猜想 -- 我們需要減少一半的溫室氣體 而且要盡速達成 現在在美國, 我們有了政治企圖心達成 但是我得說, 我們只有一個大氣層 所以 不論如何 我們需要 全球的國家都有政治宣誓去努力, 而其中的關鍵是中國
To size the problem, China's CO2 emissions today are 3.3 gigatons; the U.S. is 5.8. Business as usual means we'll have 23 gigatons from China by 2050. That's about as much CO2 as there is in the whole world. And if it's business as usual, we're going out of business. When I was in Davos, China's Mayor of Dalian was pressed about their CO2 strategy, and he said the following, "You know, Americans use seven times the CO2 per capita as Chinese." Then he asked, "Why should China sacrifice our growth so that the West can continue to be profligate and stupid?" Does anybody here have an answer for him? I don't. We've got to make this economic so that all people and all nations make the right outcome, the profitable outcome, and therefore the likely outcome. Energy's a six-trillion-dollar business worldwide. It is the mother of all markets. You remember that Internet?
量化這個問題: 中國的今日的CO2總排放是33億噸 美國是58億噸, 所以要是未來發展一切如常的話 中國到2050年會有230億噸的排放量 全世界也就會有那麼多的CO2 一切如舊 那我們也完了 當我在 Davos, 中國大連市市長論述 他們的CO2策略, 他說了以下的話: "眾所周知的, 美國人均CO2排放量是中國人的7倍" 他接著問: "為什麼要求中國人犧牲成長 好讓西方社會持續揮霍與愚蠢依舊?" 有人能回答他嗎? 我不能 我們必須要讓綠色科技更實惠。所以所有的國家 都能產出正確結果與獲利 也就是我們全體期望的未來 能源是6兆美元的全球市場 是所有市場的基礎。還記得網際網路的熱潮嗎?
Well, I'll tell you what. Green technologies -- going green -- is bigger than the Internet. It could be the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century. Moreover, if we succeed, it's going to be the most important transformation for life on the planet since, as Bill Joy says, we went from methane to oxygen in the atmosphere. Now, here's the hard question, if the trajectory of all the world's companies and individuals and policies and innovation is not going to be enough, what are we going to do? I don't know. Everyone here cares about changing the world and has made a difference in that one way or another.
我可以保證 綠色科技 會比網際網路的還大 它會是21世紀最大的商機 再來, 如果我們成功了 這會是最重要的轉變 為了地球生命 就如 Bill Joy 所說的轉變 -- 用大氣中的沼氣轉換到氧氣 現在, 這裡有個困難的問題: 如果全球所有的 公司、個人、政策、與 創新 的貢獻還是不夠, 我們該怎麼辦? 我不知道 每個人都關心要改變世界 也都多少為此付出
So, our call to action -- my call to you -- is for you to make going green your next big thing, your gig. What can you do? You can personally get carbon neutral. Go to ClimateCrisis.org or CarbonCalculator.com and buy carbon credits. You could join other leaders in mandating, lobbying for mandated cap and trade in U.S. greenhouse gas reductions. There's six bills right now in Congress. Let's get one of them passed.
因此, 我對各位的呼籲是 走向綠色 是你的下一件大事 你可以做什麼? 可以朝向零碳生活 點入 ClimateCrisis.org 或是 CarbonCalculator.com 買賣碳積分, 加入其他的領導者 遊說美國政府強制碳上限與碳交易 目前有6項法案排在議事議程, 讓我們通過一個吧
And the most important thing you can do, I think, is to use your personal power and your Rolodex to lead your business, your institution, in going green. Do it like Wal-Mart, get it to go green for its customers and its suppliers and for itself. Really think outside the box. Can you imagine what it would be like if Amazon or eBay or Google or Microsoft or Apple really went green and you caused that to happen? It could be bigger than Wal-Mart. I can't wait to see what we TEDsters do about this crisis. And I really, really hope that we multiply all of our energy, all of our talent and all of our influence to solve this problem. Because if we do, I can look forward to the conversation I'm going to have with my daughter in 20 years. (Applause)
我想, 你能做的最重要的事是 利用你個人的能力與人脈 領導你的公司、妳的單位 走向綠色 學沃爾瑪 作綠色改變 爲了客戶 爲了供應商 也爲了自己 這麼做 一定要有非傳統思考 你能想像我們大家真的能推動 Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft, 或是 Apple 做綠色改變嗎? 這會比沃爾瑪效應還大 我等不及見到 TED迷 努力突破此危機 我真的希望能 倍數相乘 所有我們的能量、 我們的才能、和我們的影響力 去解決這問題 如果我們能做到, 我能期待 20年後 我與女兒的對話 (掌聲)