So, I'm a climate scientist, and if this room is representative of the country we live in, that means about 60 percent of you, so maybe from about there over, don't strongly trust me for information on the causes of climate change. Now, I promise to tell the truth tonight, but just to humor that demographic, I've started this talk with a falsehood.
我是氣候科學家, 如果這間房間代表 我們居住的國家, 那就表示在座有六成左右的人, 大約是從那裡開始的人, 不太相信我所提供 關於氣候變遷成因的相關資訊。 我保證今天晚上說的都是真相, 但單純為了迎合那部分人口, 我用假話來開場。 【巴黎氣候協定認定…】
[The Paris Climate Accord is a product of the recognition that climate change is a global problem ...]
【巴黎氣候協定認定 氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】 這段陳述並不是歐巴馬總統說的, 【巴黎氣候協定認定…】
This statement was not made by President Obama. It was made by President Reagan, and it wasn't about climate change and the Paris Climate Accord. It was actually about the Montreal Protocol and stratospheric ozone depletion.
事實上是雷根總統説的。 【…氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】 【巴黎氣候協定認定 氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】 重點不在氣候變遷或巴黎氣候協定, 【…氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】 重點其實是蒙特婁議定書, 【…氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】 以及平流層的臭氧耗損。 【…氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】
Now, I'm sure that many of you aren't familiar with this environmental problem,
【巴黎氣候協定認定 氣候變遷是全球問題的產物…】
but you should be, because it's a rare environmental success story. And it's worth revisiting, because sometimes, we need to examine the world we've avoided in order to find guidance for the choices we make today.
我相信許多人並不熟悉 這個環境問題, 但你們應該要知道它, 因為它是個罕見的環境成功故事。 它值得被重新審視, 因為有時我們得要探討 被我們避免的世界, 才能為我們現今的選擇找到指南。
So let's go back to the 1970s, when some questionable choices were made: first of all -- hoo -- hairstyles. (Laughs) Second of all, objectively terrible quantities of hairspray, and third, CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, man-made chemicals that were used as propellant in aerosol spray cans. And see, it turns out these CFCs were a problem because they were destroying the ozone layer.
讓我們回到七○年代, 當時做了些蠻可疑的選擇: 首先......呼,髮型。(笑聲) 第二,客觀來說,巨量的噴髮定形劑, 第三,氯氟烴,簡稱 CFC, 人造的化學物質,被用來 當氣溶膠噴罐的噴射劑。 結果發現,CFC 是個問題, 因為它們會破壞臭氧層。
Now I'm sure most of you have heard of the ozone layer, but why does it matter? Well, quite simply, the ozone layer is earth's sunscreen, and it's really fragile. If you could take all of the ozone, which is mostly about 10 to 20 miles up above our heads, and compress it down to the surface of the earth, it would form a thin shell only about two pennies thick, about an eighth of an inch. And that thin shell does an amazing amount of work, though. It filters out more than 90 percent of the harmful UV radiation coming from the sun. And while I'm sure many of you enjoy that suntan that you get from the remaining 10 percent, it causes a lot of problems: cataracts, damage to crops, damage to immune systems and also skin cancer. It's not an exaggeration to say that a threat to the ozone layer is a threat to human safety.
我相信大部分人都聽過臭氧層, 但它為什麼重要? 很簡單,臭氧層是地球的遮陽板, 且它很脆弱。 大部分的臭氧在我們頭上 十到二十英哩高的地方, 若你能把所有的臭氧 向下壓到地球的表面, 它會形式一層薄薄的殼, 大約只有兩個一分硬幣的厚度, 約八分之一英吋。 不過,那層薄殼起了大大的作用。 它過濾掉超過九成 來自太陽的有害紫外線輻射。 雖然我相信許多人很享受 用那剩下的一成來把皮膚曬黑, 但它會造成很多問題:白內障、 損害作物、 損害免疫系統, 還有皮膚癌。 說危害臭氧層就是危害人類 一點也不誇張。
And actually, ironically, it was human safety that motivated the invention of CFCs in the first place. You see, in the early days of refrigeration, refrigerators used toxic and flammable chemicals like propane and ammonia. For good reason, the refrigeration industry wanted a safe alternative, and they found that in 1928, when a scientist named Thomas Midgley synthesized the first commercially viable CFCs. And in fact, Midgley famously inhaled CFCs and blew out a candle to demonstrate, at a scientific conference, that they were safe and nonflammable. And in fact, as a scientist, I can tell you there is no way you could get away with that kind of antic today. I mean, wow.
其實很諷刺的是 一開始發明 CFC 的動機 就是為了人類安全。 在冷藏的早期, 冰箱使用有毒且可燃的化學物質, 比如丙烷和氨。 有充分的理由,製冷產業 想要找安全的替代方案, 1928 年,他們找到了, 有個名叫托馬斯 · 米基利的科學家 最先合成出了 能用在商業上的 CFC。 事實上,米基利有項 為人所知的事蹟, 在一個科學大會上,他吸入 CFC 之後再將它吐向蠟燭, 展示 CFC 是安全的且不可燃的。 事實上,身為科學家, 我可以告訴各位, 現今你無法靠那種鬼把戲得逞。 我是指,哇。
But really, at the time, CFCs were a really remarkable invention. They allowed what we now know as modern-day refrigeration and air-conditioning and other things. So it wasn't actually until over 40 years later, in the 1970s, when scientists realized that CFCs would break down high in the atmosphere and damage the ozone layer. And this finding really set off a lot of public concern. It led, ultimately, to the banning of CFC usage in aerosol spray cans in the US and a few other countries in 1978.
但,說真的,在當時, CFC 是真的很了不起的發明。 CFC 讓我們現在所知的現代冷藏、 冷氣空調等成為可能。 所以,一直到四十年後, 到了七○年代, 科學家才了解到 CFC 在大氣高空會瓦解, 並傷害臭氧層。 這項發現真的引發了 大眾的大量關注。 最終,它導致 1978 年 美國及幾個其他國家 禁止使用 CFC 來做氣溶膠噴罐。
Now, the story doesn't end there, because CFCs were used in much more than just spray cans. In 1985, scientists discovered the Antarctic ozone hole, and this was a truly alarming discovery. Scientists did not expect this at all. Before the Antarctic ozone hole, scientists expected maybe a five or 10 percent reduction in ozone over a century. But what they found over the course of less than a decade was that more than a third of the ozone had simply vanished, over an area larger than the size of the US. And although we now know that CFCs are the root cause of this ozone hole, at the time, the science was far from settled. Yet despite this uncertainty, the crisis helped spur nations to act.
故事還沒結束, 因為除了氣溶膠噴罐, 還有很多東西用到 CFC。 1985 年,科學家發現 南極上空的臭氧有破洞, 那是個非常有警示性的發現。 科學家完全沒有預期到。 在南極臭氧破洞之前, 科學家預期臭氧一個世紀 會減少大約 5% 或 10%。 但結果他們發現, 在不到十年的時間, 超過三分之一的臭氧消失了, 等同一個比美國還大的面積。 雖然現在我們知道 CFC 是臭氧破洞的原兇, 在當時科學根本沒有定論。 但,儘管有這不確定性, 也因為出現這項危機, 各國才採取行動。
So that quote that I started this talk with, about the Montreal Protocol, from President Reagan -- that was his signing statement when he signed the Montreal Protocol after its unanimous ratification by the US Senate. And this is something that's truly worth celebrating. In fact, yesterday was the 30th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol.
所以我在演說一開始的引言, 引述雷根總統對 蒙特婁議定書的引言── 那是在美國參議院一致通過之後, 他簽署蒙特婁議定書時的簽署聲明。 這是真的很值得慶祝的事。 事實上,昨天是 蒙特婁議定書的三十週年。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Because of the protocol, ozone-depleting substances are now declining in our atmosphere, and we're starting to see the first signs of healing in the ozone layer. And furthermore, because many of those ozone-depleting substances are also very potent greenhouse gases, the Montreal Protocol has actually delayed global warming by more than a decade. That's just wonderful. But I think it's worth asking the question, as we face our current environmental crisis, global warming, what lessons can we learn from Montreal? Are there any? I think there are.
因為該議定書, 如今大氣中消耗臭氧的物質減少了, 我們也開始看到臭氧層 康復的第一個徵兆。 此外,因為許多會消耗臭氧的物質 同時也是非常強力的溫室氣體, 蒙特婁議定書其實也將 全球暖化延遲了至少十年。 那真的很好。 但,我認為有個問題值得去問, 面對目前的環境危機 「全球暖化」之際, 我們能從蒙特婁議定書學到些什麼? 有嗎?我認為有。
First, we don't need absolute certainty to act. When Montreal was signed, we were less certain then of the risks from CFCs than we are now of the risks from greenhouse gas emissions. A common tactic that people who oppose climate action use is to completely ignore risk and focus only on uncertainty. But so what about uncertainty? We make decisions in the face of uncertainty all the time, literally all the time. You know, I'll bet those of you who drove here tonight, you probably wore your seat belt. And so ask yourself, did you wear your seat belt because someone told you with a hundred percent [certainty] that you would get in a car crash on the way here? Probably not. So that's the first lesson. Risk management and decision making always have uncertainty. Ignoring risk and focusing only on uncertainty is a distraction. In other words, inaction is an action.
首先,我們不需要等到 完全肯定才採取行動。 蒙特婁議定書被簽署時, 我們那時對於 CFC 會造成風險的確定程度, 還不及我們現在對於溫室氣體 排放會造成風險的肯定程度。 反對為氣候採取行動的人, 最常採用的戰術 就是完全忽略風險, 把焦點放在不確定性上。 但,不確定性又怎樣? 我們總在面對不確定性時做決策, 真的總是如此。 我敢說,今天晚上開車來這裡的人 可能都繫上安全帶。 所以,問問自己, 你繫上安全帶是因為有人 百分之百肯定地告訴你, 你到這裡的路上會發生車禍嗎? 應該不是。 那是第一課。 風險管理和決策總是會有不確定性。 忽略風險,只著重不確定性, 是在轉移注意力。 換言之,不採取行動 本身就是一種行動。
Second, it takes a village to raise a healthy environment. The Montreal Protocol wasn't just put together by industry and governments or environmental advocacy groups and scientists. It was put together by all of them. They all had a seat at the table, and they all played an important role in the solution. And I think in this regard, we're actually seeing some encouraging signs today. We see not just environmental groups concerned about climate change but also civic and religious groups, the military and businesses. So wherever you find yourself on that spectrum, we need you at the table, because if we're going to solve global warming, it's going to take actions at all levels, from the individual to the international and everything in between.
第二,要整村人同心協力 才能建起健康的環境。 促成蒙特婁議定書的 不只是產業及政府, 或環境擁護團體和科學家。 是他們全部聯手促成的。 他們全都參了一腳, 都在解決方案中承擔重要角色。 我認為,現今我們在這點上 確實看到些振奮人心的徵兆。 我們看到,不僅環境團體 關心氣候變遷, 還有公民團體和宗教團體, 軍方和企業。 所以,不論你在光譜上的哪個位置, 我們也需要你參與, 因為,如果我們要解決全球暖化, 會需要各層級都採取行動, 從個人層級到國際層級, 以及中間的每個層級。
Third lesson: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. While Montreal has become the brake pedal for stopping ozone depletion, at its beginning, it was more just like a tap on the brakes. It was actually the later amendments to the protocol that really marked the decision to hit the brakes on ozone depletion.
第三課: 不要讓「完美」成為「好」的敵人。 雖然蒙特婁議定書已成 阻止臭氧消耗的煞車踏板, 一開始,它更像 只是輕輕點了一下煞車。 實際上要等議定書被修訂之後 才真正做出決策, 要一腳踩到底,煞住臭氧的消耗。
So to those who despair that the Paris Climate Accord didn't go far enough or that your limited actions on their own won't solve global warming, I say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And finally, I think it helps us to contemplate the world we've avoided. Indeed, the world we have avoided by enacting the Montreal Protocol is one of catastrophic changes to our environment and to human well-being. By the 2030s, we'll be avoiding millions of new skin cancer cases per year with a number that would only grow. If I'm lucky, I'll live long enough to see the end of this animation and to see the ozone hole restored to its natural state.
所以,若你感到灰心, 覺得巴黎氣候協定做得不夠, 或是光靠你有限的行動, 無法解決全球暖化, 我會說,別讓 「完美」成為「好」的敵人。 最後,我認為仔細思忖被我們 避開的世界會有幫助。 的確,我們制定蒙特婁 議定書而避免的世界 是個災難巨變的世界, 不論是在環境面上或人類幸福面上。 到 2030 年代, 我們每年能避免數百萬個 新的皮膚癌案例, 這個數字只會不斷上升。 如果我很幸運,我會活得夠久 可以看到這段動畫的結尾, 看到臭氧破洞 被復原到自然的狀態。
So as we write the story for earth's climate future for this century and beyond, we need to ask ourselves, what will our actions be so that someone can stand on this stage in 30 or 50 or a hundred years to celebrate the world that they've avoided.
當我們為地球的氣候未來 寫這個世紀以及之後的故事時, 得要自問:我們要採取什麼行動, 才能讓三十年、 五十年,或一百年後, 能夠有人站在這個舞台上, 慶祝他們避免掉災難的世界。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)