So imagine, you're in the supermarket, you're buying some groceries, and you get given the option for a plastic or a paper shopping bag. Which one do you choose if you want to do the right thing by the environment?
想像你在逛超市, 在買一些日常用品, 你有兩個選擇: 用塑膠購物袋或紙購物袋, 如果不想破壞環境的話, 你會選擇哪一個?
Most people do pick the paper. Okay, let's think of why. It's brown to start with. Therefore, it must be good for the environment. It's biodegradable. It's reusable. In some cases, it's recyclable. So when people are looking at the plastic bag, it's likely they're thinking of something like this, which we all know is absolutely terrible, and we should be avoiding at all expenses these kinds of environmental damages. But people are often not thinking of something like this, which is the other end of the spectrum. When we produce materials, we need to extract them from the environment, and we need a whole bunch of environmental impacts.
多數人選擇的是紙質購物袋。 好吧,讓我們想想爲什麽。 首先,紙是棕色的, 因此,它一定是有助於環保的, 它可以生物降解,可多次使用, 有些還可以被再循環利用, 所以當人們看著塑膠袋, 可能聯想到的是這些畫面。 我們都知道這相當可怕, 我們理應盡力避免 這些有損於環境的行為, 但是人們很少考慮到 這種情形, 即另一個極端現象: 當我們生產材料時, 需要從環境中獲取原材料, 這會對環境造成一連串的影響。
You see, what happens is, when we need to make complex choices, us humans like really simple solutions, and so we often ask for simple solutions. And I work in design. I advise designers and innovators around sustainability, and everyone always says to me, "Oh Leyla, I just want the eco-materials."
你看,就是這樣,當人們需要 做出複雜的選擇時, 我們喜歡很簡單的解決方案, 人們因此而尋求簡單的方案。 我的工作是設計。 我建議設計師 和發明家著眼於材料的永續性。 每個人總是對我說:「萊拉, 我只是想要生物材料。 」
And I say, "Well, that's very complex, and we'll have to spend four hours talking about what exactly an eco-material means, because everything at some point comes from nature, and it's how you use the material that dictates the environmental impact. So what happens is, we have to rely on some sort of intuitive framework when we make decisions. So I like to call that intuitive framework our environmental folklore. It's either the little voice at the back of your head, or it's that gut feeling you get when you've done the right thing, so when you've picked the paper bag or when you've bought a fuel-efficient car. And environmental folklore is a really important thing because we're trying to do the right thing. But how do we know if we're actually reducing the net environmental impacts that our actions as individuals and as professionals and as a society are actually having on the natural environment?
我說:「這很難解釋, 得花上4個小時來解釋 生物材料的確切含義。 因為從某方面來說, 一切都來自與自然界。 是人們使用材料的方式 支配和影響著環境。 實情是,我們不得不依賴 幾分直覺架構 去做決定。 所以我喜歡將這些直覺架構稱為 「環境的信仰」。 它或是人們腦中的小小的意見, 或是人的一種直覺, 一種做了件正確的事的直覺。 比如你選擇了紙質購物袋, 或者你買了一輛節能汽車。 環境的信仰真的很重要, 因為我們時刻試著去做正確的事。 但是如果我們真的 減少了對環境的淨影響力, 作為個體,作為專業人士,作為一個社會整體, 我們要怎樣才能知道,我們的行為 確實影響了自然環境?
So the thing about environmental folklore is it tends to be based on our experiences, the things we've heard from other people. It doesn't tend to be based on any scientific framework. And this is really hard, because we live in incredibly complex systems. We have the human systems of how we communicate and interrelate and have our whole constructed society, We have the industrial systems, which is essentially the entire economy, and then all of that has to operate within the biggest system, and, I would argue, the most important, the ecosystem. And you see, the choices that we make as an individual, but the choices that we make in every single job that we have, no matter how high or low you are in the pecking order, has an impact on all of these systems. And the thing is that we have to find ways if we're actually going to address sustainability of interlocking those complex systems and making better choices that result in net environmental gains. What we need to do is we need to learn to do more with less. We have an increasing population, and everybody likes their mobile phones, especially in this situation here. So we need to find innovative ways of solving some of these problems that we face.
環境的信仰 是建立在我們的經驗之上, 是我們從別人那聽來的, 而不是基於任何科學框架。 這一點真的很難,因為我們生活在 異常複雜的多系統內。 人與人有相互交流, 和聯繫的人類系統, 還有有人類構建的整個社會系統, 我們有工業系統, 本質上相當於整個經濟體系, 這些都在一個 最大的系統內運行。 我認為最重要的系統 就是生態系統。 我們作為一個個體 做出選擇, 我們在每一份工作中 做出選擇, 無論你所在的社會等級是高還是低, (這些選擇)都會對所有的這些系統造成影響。 關鍵是我們得找到方法。 如果我們真想解決 那些相互連結的複雜系統內的永續性, 並且做出更好的選擇, 獲得環境淨收益。 我們就要學會做到 事半功倍。 我們的人口在不斷增長, 人人都喜歡拿著自己的手機, 特別是在聽演講的時候。 因此要解決我們面對的這些問題, 我們需要找出創新方法。
And that's where this process called life cycle thinking comes in. So essentially, everything that is created goes through a series of life cycle stages, and we use this scientific process called life cycle assessment, or in America, you guys say life cycle analysis, in order to have a clearer picture of how everything that we do in the technical part of those systems affects the natural environment. So we go all the way back to the extraction of raw materials, and then we look at manufacturing, we look at packaging and transportation, use, and end of life, and at every single one of these stages, the things that we do have an interaction with the natural environment, and we can monitor how that interaction is actually affecting the systems and services that make life on Earth possible. And through doing this, we've learned some absolutely fascinating things. And we've busted a bunch of myths.
這就是「生命週期思維過程 」所關注的。 基本上每一樣被創造出來的東西, 都要經歷一系列的生命週期階段, 我們利用的這種科學研究過程, 被稱為生命週期評估。 在美國,它被稱為生命週期分析。 爲了得到一個清晰的圖景, 來顯示在這些系統的技術層面, 人類的每個做法 是怎樣影響到自然環境的。 我們一直追溯到最初, 從提取原始材料開始, 然後加工製造的過程, 我們考察包裝、運輸、使用, 一直到使用壽命終結。 在其中的每一個階段, 我們所做的每一件事 都與自然環境相互作用。 我們可以觀察這種相互作用 如何影響著所有的系統和服務, 使地球上生命的存在成為可能。 通過這些工作, 我們發現了一些相當有趣的事。 我們已經解決了一連串的謎題。
So to start with, there's a word that's used a lot. It's used a lot in marketing, and it's used a lot, I think, in our conversation when we're talking about sustainability, and that's the word biodegradability. Now biodegradability is a material property; it is not a definition of environmental benefits. Allow me to explain. When something natural, something that's made from a cellulose fiber like a piece of bread, even, or any food waste, or even a piece of paper, when something natural ends up in the natural environment, it degrades normally. Its little carbon molecules that it stored up as it was growing are naturally released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but this is a net situation. Most natural things don't actually end up in nature. Most of the things, the waste that we produce, end up in landfill. Landfill is a different environment. In landfill, those same carbon molecules degrade in a different way, because a landfill is anaerobic. It's got no oxygen. It's tightly compacted and hot. Those same molecules, they become methane, and methane is a 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So our old lettuces and products that we have thrown out that are made out of biodegradable materials, if they end up in landfill, contribute to climate change. You see, there are facilities now that can actually capture that methane and generate power, displacing the need for fossil fuel power, but we need to be smart about this. We need to identify how we can start to leverage these types of things that are already happening and start to design systems and services that alleviate these problems. Because right now, what people do is they turn around and they say, "Let's ban plastic bags. We'll give people paper because that is better for the environment." But if you're throwing it in the bin, and your local landfill facility is just a normal one, then we're having what's called a double negative.
首先,有這樣一個使用頻繁的單詞, 經常在市場行銷中使用, 人們在談話中經常提到, 如果談論的話題與永續性相關。 即「 生物降解 」。 生物降解是一種材料屬性, 不等於有益於環境。 允我解釋一下, 某些天然物質 由纖維素纖維構成, 像是一塊麵包或是那些食物垃圾, 甚至是一張紙。 當這種天然物質最終化為 自然界中的一部份,它就屬於自然分解。 它本身具有的碳分子, 隨著自身增長而增長的碳分子, 自然而然地會 以二氧化碳的形式被釋放到大氣中。 這是一種純粹的降解方式。 大多數由自然物質構成的事物 並不會終結於自然界中。 人類製造的廢棄物多半被棄置在垃圾站。 垃圾填築地是另一種環境。 在垃圾填築地,同樣的碳分子 以不一樣的方式進行降解, 因為垃圾站是厭氧性環境, 那裡沒有氧氣,緊密堆積且熱氣騰騰。 在垃圾填築地,同樣的分子形成甲烷。 比二氧化碳造成的 溫室效應強25倍。 我們扔掉的 蔬菜和日用品, 即便由生物降解材料構成, 一旦進入垃圾填築地, 就會促進氣候變化。 現在有些設備 能夠收集甲烷, 轉化成電能, 替代化石燃料發電。 但這些需要人們機智的對待。 我們需要明瞭,怎樣去影響 這些時刻發生的反應。 怎樣去設計系統和服務體系 來解決這些問題。 因為當下,人們只會回過頭來說: 「禁止使用塑料袋。我們為人們提供紙袋 因為紙袋更有利於環境。」 但如果你把它扔進了垃圾箱, 而且當地垃圾填築站的設備 又很普通, 那麼我們就遭遇了雙重否定(即破壞環境)。
I'm a product designer by trade. I then did social science. And so I'm absolutely fascinated by consumer goods and how the consumer goods that we have kind of become immune to that fill our lives have an impact on the natural environment. And these guys are, like, serial offenders, and I'm pretty sure everyone in this room has a refrigerator. Now America has this amazing ability to keep growing refrigerators. In the last few years, they've grown one cubic foot on average, the standard size of a refrigerator. And the problem is, they're so big now, it's easier for us to buy more food that we can't eat or find. I mean, I have things at the back of my refrigerator that have been there for years, all right? And so what happens is, we waste more food. And as I was just explaining, food waste is a problem. In fact, here in the U.S., 40 percent of food purchased for the home is wasted. Half of the world's produced food is wasted. That's the latest U.N. stats. Up to half of the food. It's insane. It's 1.3 billion tons of food per annum. And I blame it on the refrigerator, well, especially in Western cultures, because it makes it easier. I mean, there's a lot of complex systems going on here. I don't want to make it so simplistic.
我的職業是產品設計師, 然後才是從事社會科學。 所以我很著迷於 消費品,著迷於那些 我們多少有些麻木了的、 充斥著我們的生活的消費品 是怎樣影響自然環境的。 這些消費品就好像累犯一樣。 我十分確定這裡的每一個人家裡 都有一台冰箱。 美國有驚人的實力, 不斷擴大冰箱的容積。 過去的幾年間,冰箱的 標準體積平均擴大了 一立方英尺。 問題是,冰箱已經過大了, 容易讓人買更多的、 找不到又吃不下的食物。 我就有些食物放在冰箱深處 有些年頭了,好嗎? 所以實情是我們會浪費更多食物。 我剛剛說明的是 浪費食物是個問題。 事實上,在美國有40%的 家庭購買的食物被浪費。 世界上有一半的食物被浪費掉。 這是聯合國最新的統計數據, 高達一半的食物被浪費。 這太荒唐了,相當於每年13億噸的食物。 我將這種顯現歸咎於冰箱的使用。 特別是基於西方文化, 因為冰箱使人更容易浪費食物。 這其中有太多複雜的體系。 我不想將它簡單化。
But the refrigerator is a serious contributor to this, and one of the features of it is the crisper drawer. You all got crisper drawers? The drawer that you put your lettuces in? Lettuces have a habit of going soggy in the crisper drawers, don't they? Yeah? Soggy lettuces? In the U.K., this is such a problem that there was a government report a few years ago that actually said the second biggest offender of wasted food in the U.K. is the soggy lettuce. It was called the Soggy Lettuce Report. Okay? So this is a problem, people. These poor little lettuces are getting thrown out left, right and center because the crisper drawers are not designed to actually keep things crisp. Okay. You need a tight environment. You need, like, an airless environment to prevent the degrading that would happen naturally. But the crisper drawers, they're just a drawer with a slightly better seal. Anyway, I'm clearly obsessed. Don't ever invite me over because I'll just start going through your refrigerator and looking at all sorts of things like that. But essentially, this is a big problem. Because when we lose something like the lettuce from the system, not only do we have that impact I just explained at the end of life, but we actually have had to grow that lettuce. The life cycle impact of that lettuce is astronomical. We've had to clear land. We've had to plant seeds, phosphorus, fertilizers, nutrients, water, sunlight. All of the embodied impacts in that lettuce get lost from the system, which makes it a far bigger environmental impact than the loss of the energy from the fridge. So we need to design things like this far better if we're going to start addressing serious environmental problems. We could start with the crisper drawer and the size. For those of you in the room who do design fridges, that would be great.
但是冰箱是其中一個嚴峻的促因。 它有一個特色, 就是保鮮儲藏格。 大家都有保鮮箱吧? 就是放生菜的那一格? 生菜會變得濕軟, 在保鮮箱裡,對吧? 變軟的生菜? 在英國,這樣一個問題 在幾年前被寫成了一份政府報告。 報告稱,英國第二大 浪費的食物就是變軟的生菜。 該報告被稱為《軟生菜報告》。 所以,朋友,這是個問題。 那些不幸的生菜被扔得 到處都是,就因為保鮮箱 沒真正起到保鮮的作用。 你需要一個密閉的環境。 像沒有空氣的環境 來防止降解的自然發生。 但是保鮮箱只是個 密封較好的抽屜而已。 總之,很明顯,我困惑了。 永遠別邀請我去你家。 因為我會檢查你的冰箱, 查看所有這類現象。 但本質上,這是個大問題。 因為在這個系統內, 當我們扔掉生菜這類食物, 不只是影響到 我剛剛提到的生命的終結, 還影響到種植生菜這個起點。 對生菜生命週期的影響是難以估計的。 我們已經備好了耕地, 我們已經種了種子,撒了磷, 撒了化肥,養肥,澆了水,曬了陽光。 所有體現在那顆生菜上的作用 從系統中丟失了。 這使得它對環境有更大的影響, 比冰箱的能量損失嚴重得多。 所以我們需要好得多的設計。 如果我們要著手 解決這些嚴重的環境問題, 我們可以從保鮮盒抽屜的大小著手。 對於在座的設計的冰箱各位來講, 這是極好的。
The problem is, imagine if we actually started to reconsider how we designed things. So I look at the refrigerator as a sign of modernity, but we actually haven't really changed the design of them that much since the 1950s. A little bit, but essentially they're still big boxes, cold boxes that we store stuff in. So imagine if we actually really started to identify these problems and use that as the foundation for finding innovative and elegant design solutions that will solve those problems. This is design-led system change, design dictating the way in which the system can be far more sustainable. Forty percent food waste is a major problem. Imagine if we designed fridges that halved that.
問題是,想像一下,如果我們 重新開始考慮我們是怎樣進行設計的。 所以我將冰箱視為現代化的標誌。 但其實自1950 年代以來,我們並沒有 對這個設計做多少改變。 有點變化,但本質上它們還是大箱子, 用於存儲食物的冷藏盒。 想像一下,我們是否真的開始 面對這些問題。 並且將其作為基準,來尋找 創新一流的設計方案,來解決這些問題。 這是系統的設計性變化, 設計指出了一種令該系統 可以更加永續的方案。 40%的食物浪費是一個重大問題。 想像一下如果我們 設計的冰箱只有一半的容積。
Another item that I find fascinating is the electric tea kettle, which I found out that you don't do tea kettles in this country, really, do you? But that's really big in the U.K. Ninety-seven percent of households in the United Kingdom own an electric tea kettle. So they're very popular. And, I mean, if I were to work with a design firm or a designer, and they were designing one of these, and they wanted to do it eco, they'd usually ask me two things. They'd say, "Leyla, how do I make it technically efficient?" Because obviously energy's a problem with this product. Or, "How do I make it green materials? How do I make the materials green in the manufacturing?" Would you ask me those questions? They seem logical, right? Yeah. Well I'd say, "You're looking at the wrong problems." Because the problem is with use. It's with how people use the product. Sixty-five percent of Brits admit to over-filling their kettle when they only need one cup of tea. All of this extra water that's being boiled requires energy, and it's been calculated that in one day of extra energy use from boiling kettles is enough to light all of the streetlights in England for a night.
另一項讓我覺得有意思的東西 是茶葉電水壺。 我發現 美國人不用茶水壺,對嗎? 但在英國它有很大的市場。 英國有97%的家庭 擁有一把茶葉電水壺。 它們很受歡迎。 我想要是我去一家設計公司上班, 或者與設計師共事,他們在設計這些東西, 而且他們想讓它有生態概念, 他們通常都會問我兩件事。 他們會說:「蕾拉, 如何使它在技術上是可行的?」 因為很明顯, 這件產品有耗能的問題。 或者問:「怎樣使它成為綠色材料? 怎樣使這種材料, 使得製造過程無污染?」 你會問我這些問題嗎? 它們看起來符合邏輯,對嗎?的確。 我會說:「你找錯問題了。」 因為問題在於使用, 問題是人們如何使用該產品。 百分之六十五的英國人 承認壺裡的水裝的過滿。 有時他們只需要一杯茶。 煮熟這些額外的水 需要能耗。有人算出, 因為使用電水壺而產生的 一天的額外能耗, 就足以點亮英格蘭一個晚上的 所有路燈。
But this is the thing. This is what I call a product-person failure. But we've got a product-system failure going on with these little guys, and they're so ubiquitous, you don't even notice they're there. And this guy over here, though, he does. He's named Simon. Simon works for the national electricity company in the U.K. He has a very important job of monitoring all of the electricity coming into the system to make sure there is enough so it powers everybody's homes. He's also watching television. The reason is because there's a unique phenomenon that happens in the U.K. the moment that very popular TV shows end. The minute the ad break comes on, this man has to rush to buy nuclear power from France, because everybody turns their kettles on at the same time. (Laughter) 1.5 million kettles, seriously problematic. So imagine if you designed kettles, you actually found a way to solve these system failures, because this is a huge amount of pressure on the system, just because the product hasn't thought about the problem that it's going to have when it exists in the world. Now, I looked at a number of kettles available on the market, and found the minimum fill lines, so the little piece of information that tells you how much you need to put in there, was between two and a five-and-a-half cups of water just to make one cup of tea. So this kettle here is an example of one where it actually has two reservoirs. One's a boiling chamber, and one's the water holder. The user actually has to push that button to get their hot water boiled, which means, because we're all lazy, you only fill exactly what you need. And this is what I call behavior-changing products: products, systems or services that intervene and solve these problems up front.
但這件事 被我稱作人為使用產品的疏忽。 然而產品與環境失調, 就是因為這些小小的疏忽。 他們無處不在,你甚至注意不到他們。 圖片上的這個人,名叫西蒙。 西蒙在英國國家電力公司工作。 他在做一項非常重要的工作 ── 監測所有進入該系統的電力。 確保有足夠的電能 為所有英國家庭供電。 他也在看電視, 原因是有一種獨特的、 發生在英國的現象。 很受歡迎的電視節目結束的那一瞬間, 在廣告時間開始的那一分鐘, 他就要趕緊 從法國購買核電。 因為所有人都要在同一時間 接通電水壺。 (笑聲) 150 萬臺電水壺,問題非常嚴重。 想像一下如果你設計水壺, 你其實找到了這些系統故障解決方法, 因為這個相當大的壓力 作用在該系統上。 只是因為這個產品沒有考慮過這個問題。 它面市之後會出現的這個問題。 我看過市面上大量的電水壺, 發現有最小容積的刻度線。 這條訊息就告訴大家 要放多少水進去。 最小容積就介於在兩杯水和五杯半之間, 剛剛好沏一杯茶。 圖片上的這個水壺 實際上有兩個內膽。 一個用來燒水,一個是用來儲水。 使用者只需按下這個按鈕, 就可以將水煮沸。 因為我們都懶, 你只會裝入你需要的量。 這被我稱為「改變行為」的產品: (設計)產品、 系統或服務 來調解並解決前面提到的問題。
Now, this is a technology arena, so obviously these things are quite popular, but I think if we're going to keep designing, buying and using and throwing out these kinds of products at the rate we currently do, which is astronomically high, there are seven billion people who live in the world right now. There are six billion mobile phone subscriptions as of last year. Every single year, 1.5 billion mobile phones roll off production lines, and some companies report their production rate as being greater than the human birth rate. One hundred fifty-two million phones were thrown out in the U.S. last year; only 11 percent were recycled. I'm from Australia. We have a population of 22 million -- don't laugh -- and it's been reported that 22 million phones are in people's drawers. We need to find ways of solving the problems around this, because these things are so complicated. They have so much locked up inside them. Gold! Did you know that it's actually cheaper now to get gold out of a ton of old mobile phones than it is out of a ton of gold ore? There's a number of highly complex and valuable materials embodied inside these things, so we need to find ways of encouraging disassembly, because this is otherwise what happens. This is a community in Ghana, and e-waste is reported, or electronic waste is reported by the U.N. as being up to 50 million tons trafficked. This is how they get the gold and the other valuable materials out. They burn the electronic waste in open spaces. These are communities, and this is happening all over the world. And because we don't see the ramifications of the choices that we make as designers, as businesspeople, as consumers, then these kinds of externalities happen, and these are people's lives. So we need to find smarter, more systems-based, innovative solutions to these problems, if we're going to start to live sustainably within this world.
這是一個技術競技場。 顯然這些東西相當普遍, 但我認為要保持 目前我們設計、購買、使用、 和廢棄這類產品的速度。 這種速度快得驚人, 如今世界上有70億人口。 如今世界上有70億人口。 只去年一年間,就有60億臺手機訂購。 只去年一年間,就有60億臺手機訂購。 每年有15億部手機 從生產中下線。 一些公司報告稱,其生產率 比人的出生率更高。 去年,美國有 1.52 億部電話被廢棄, 只有11%被回收利用。 我來自澳大利亞,人口只有 2200 萬 -- 別取笑我們 -- 有報導稱有 2200 萬部手機 都躺在人們的抽屜裡。 我們需要找到解決這些問題的方法, 因為這些事是如此複雜。 其內部有非常多的連鎖反應。 黃金!你有沒有聽說過, 現在從一噸舊手機中提煉黃金, 要比從一噸金礦石中提煉黃金更便宜? 大量高度複雜和高價值的材料 應用在這些東西的生產過程中, 所以我們需要設法實現分解, 否則就會發生對環境不好的事。 這是加納的一個社區, 聯合國報導稱, 這裡的電子廢棄物 有高達 5000 萬噸被販賣。 他們通過這種方法提煉黃金, 以及其他有價值的材料。 他們在室外焚燒 電子廢物。 這樣的社區,這類的情況遍佈世界各地。 因為我們看不到我們造成的後果。 作為設計師, 作為商人,作為消費者(我們看不到後果) 於是出現了這些負外部性, 這就關係到人們的生活。 所以我們需要找到更巧妙、更加系統化的 創新方案來解決這些問題, 如果我們想要永續地生活在這個世界上。
So imagine if, when you bought your mobile phone, your new one because you replaced your old one -- after 15 to 18 months is the average time that people replace their phones, by the way — so if we're going to keep this kind of expedient mobile phone replacing, then we should be looking at closing the loop on these systems. The people who produce these phones, and some of which I'm sure are in the room right now, could potentially look at doing what we call closed-loop systems, or product system services, so identifying that there is a market demand and that market demand's not going to go anywhere, so you design the product to solve the problem. Design for disassembly, design for light-weighting. We heard some of those kinds of strategies being used in the Tesla Motors car today. These kinds of approaches are not hard, but understanding the system and then looking for viable, market-driven consumer demand alternatives is how we can start radically altering the sustainability agenda, because I hate to break it to you all: Consumption is the biggest problem. But design is one of the best solutions.
想像一下,如果當你買了一部手機, 新的會替換那款老舊的。 順便提一下,人們更換手機的平均時間是 15 到 18 個月。 如果我們要保持這種 更換手機的速度,我們應該 著眼於關閉這些系統裡的循環圈。 產生手機的人, 在座肯定也有生產手機的, 有可能看到被我們稱之為「閉環」 的系統的潛力, 或產品的系統服務。 所以確定有手機市場需求, 並確定這樣的市場需求會始終存在, 然後就要靠你所設計的產品來解決這個問題。 為易拆卸而設計,為輕量化而設計, 我們聽說過一些這種類型的策略, 正用於特斯拉汽車公司的生產。 這些方法並不難, 但是認識系統, 並尋求可行的、以市場為導向的 滿足消費者需求的替代品, 是我們能夠開始從根本上改變 永續發展議程的做法。 不幸要告知大家的是: 消費是最大的問題。 但設計是最好的解決方案之一。
These kinds of products are everywhere. By identifying alternative ways of doing things, we can actually start to innovate, and I say actually start to innovate. I'm sure everyone in this room is very innovative. But in the regards to using sustainability as a parameter, as a criteria for fueling systems-based solutions, because as I've just demonstrated with these simple products, they're participating in these major problems. So we need to look across the entire life of the things that we do.
這類產品廣泛存在。 通過改變人們做事的方式, 我們可以發動革新, 也就是開始進行創新。 我相信在座每個人都具有革新精神。 但關於將永續性 用作一種參數,一個準則, 去激發基於系統的解決方案, 我們做得還不夠。 因為正如我剛剛展示的 這些簡單的產品, 它們構成了這些重大的問題的一部份。 所以我們有必要審視整個產品的生命週期。 看看我們所做的事。
If you just had paper or plastic -- obviously reusable is far more beneficial -- then the paper is worse, and the paper is worse because it weighs four to 10 times more than the plastic, and when we actually compare, from a life cycle perspective, a kilo of plastic and a kilo of paper, the paper is far better, but the functionality of a plastic or a paper bag to carry your groceries home is not done with a kilo of each material. It's done with a very small amount of plastic and quite a lot more paper. Because functionality defines environmental impact, and I said earlier that the designers always ask me for the eco-materials. I say, there's only a few materials that you should completely avoid. The rest of them, it's all about application, and at the end of the day, everything we design and produce in the economy or buy as consumers is done so for function. We want something, therefore we buy it. So breaking things back down and delivering smartly, elegantly, sophisticated solutions that take into consideration the entire system and the entire life of the thing, everything, all the way back to the extraction through to the end of life, we can start to actually find really innovative solutions.
如果你恰好有張紙或一片塑料, 顯然能夠重複使用的更有好處。 那麼紙質則較為糟糕, 因為它的重量 比塑料袋多出 4 到 10 倍。 實際上當我們在做比較時, 從生命週期角度來看, 一公斤的塑膠和一公斤的紙, 紙會更好些。 但是一個塑膠或紙包的功能 是幫您把雜物帶回家。 它們並不是靠一公斤的材料做成的。 而是用非常少的塑膠, 和相當多的紙製成的。 因此功能決定了對環境的影響。 我剛才提到設計師們,總是問我要生態材料。 我想說,只有少數幾種材料 你們應該完全避免使用。 其餘的,都是在應用過程中 才涉及到生態問題。 最終,我們在經濟社會中 設計和生產的一切, 消費者購買的所有東西, 都是為了使用價值。 人們想要某樣東西,就去購買。 因此要回過頭來,分析並提出 巧妙、優雅,精良的解決方案。 考慮到整個系統、 整個生命週期,全部一切, 追溯貫穿整個生命的精華所在, 我們才可以找到 真正的創新的解決方案。
And I'll just leave you with one very quick thing that a designer said to me recently who I work with, a senior designer. I said, "How come you're not doing sustainability? I know you know this." And he said, "Well, recently I pitched a sustainability project to a client, and turned and he said to me, 'I know it's going to cost less, I know it's going to sell more, but we're not pioneers, because pioneers have arrows in their backs.'"
給大家講件簡短的事, 是一個與我共事的資深設計師 最近對我說的。 我問:「你怎麼不做永續性研究? 我想你知道這個。」 他說:「最近我拒絕了一個客戶的 永續性研究項目, 他回頭對我說: 「我知道它會降低成本, 我知道它會賣得更多, 但我們不是開拓者, 因為開拓者腹背受敵。」
I think we've got a roomful of pioneers, and I hope there are far more pioneers out there, because we need to solve these problems.
我想我們這有一屋子的開拓者, 我希望外面有更多的開拓者, 因為我們需要解決這些問題。
Thank you.
謝謝大家!
(Applause)
(掌聲)