So how would you run a whole country without oil? That's the question that sort of hit me in the middle of a Davos afternoon about four years ago. It never left my brain. And I started playing with it more like a puzzle. The original thought I had: this must be ethanol. So I went out and researched ethanol, and found out you need the Amazon in your backyard in every country. About six months later I figured out it must be hydrogen, until some scientist told me the unfortunate truth, which is, you actually use more clean electrons than the ones you get inside a car, if you use hydrogen. So that is not going to be the path to go.
一個國家要是沒有石油會如何? 這問題是我四年前, 在達沃斯(瑞士)的一個下午突然想到的。 這問題纏著我好久 所以我開始解決這個謎題 我原本想,酒精是解決方式 所以我做了酒精的研究 發現,每個國家都得要有亞馬遜雨林,才有辦法成功 半年後,我覺得氮氣是解決方式 直到一些科學家告訴我這個不幸的事實, 就是,如果用氮氣, 那我用掉的乾淨電子會比 汽車使用的電子還多。 所以這條路也行不通
And then sort of through a process of wandering around, I got to the thought that actually if you could convert an entire country to electric cars, in a way that is convenient and affordable, you could get to a solution. Now I started this from a point of view that it has to be something that scales en masse. Not how do you build one car, but how do you scale this so that it can become something that is used by 99 percent of the population? The thought that came to mind is that it needs to be as good as any car that you would have today. So one, it has to be more convenient than a car. And two, it has be more affordable than today's cars. Affordable is not a 40,000 dollar sedan, right? Alright? That's not something that we can finance or buy today. And convenient is not something that you drive for an hour and charge for eight.
所以一連串的嘗試 我終於想到 如果要整個國家都使用電動車 那就要讓它方便、便宜 才有辦法解決這難題 所以我的出發點是, 這解決方式一定要大規模的 跟汽車製造無關 而是要讓它的規模大到 99%的人口都使用 我的想法是,這東西一定要 比現在汽車更好 所以,第一:一定要比汽車方便 第二:一定要比現在的車價便宜 一部轎車4萬可不叫便宜 對吧?這種價格普通人付不起 而開車1小時需充電8小時可不叫方便
So we're bound with the laws of physics and the laws of economics. And so the thought that I started with was how do you do this, still within the boundary of the science we know today -- no time for science fair, no time for playing around with things or waiting for the magic battery to show up. How do you do it within the economics that we have today? How do you do it from the power of the consumer up? And not from the power of an edict down.
所以我們需要考慮到物理限制 以及經濟限制 所以我開始想著 實際的計畫,還得要 現在科學能達成才行 否則我們沒有多餘時間 研究、等待魔術電池的發明 那要怎麼在現今經濟下達成? 怎麼促進消費者自發的能力? 而非從法令規定下手
On a random visit to Tesla on some afternoon, I actually found out that the answer comes from separating between the car ownership and the battery ownership. In a sense if you want to think about it this is the classic "batteries not included." Now if you separate between the two, you could actually answer the need for a convenient car by creating a network, by creating a network before the cars show up. The network has two components in them. First component is you charge the car whenever you stop -- ends up that cars are these strange beasts that drive for about two hours and park for about 22 hours. If you drive a car in the morning and drive it back in the afternoon the ratio of charge to drive is about a minute for a minute. And so the first thought that came to mind is, everywhere we park we have electric power. Now it sounds crazy. But in some places around the world, like Scandinavia, you already have that. If you park your car and didn't plug in the heater, when you come back you don't have a car. It just doesn't work.
有次參觀特斯拉(Tesla美國電動車廠)時, 我終於發現,答案就是 車廠與電池廠的 區分機制 你想想就是經典的: 「本品不附電池」 如果你將兩者分開 就是一台便利的車所需要的 就由創造一種網路 在汽車出現前,創造這種網路 這網路有兩個部份 第一部分:車停的時候,馬上充電 結果是,這些車變成 開2小時車,得充電22小時 如果早上開車出門,下午開車回家 充電與開車比例是一分鐘比一分鐘 所以我馬上想到 讓所有停車處都要有電力設備 聽起來很瘋狂,但有很多國家 像是北歐,已經這麼做了 如果停車的時候,沒插上暖風裝置 你要開的時候就發不動了
Now that last mile, last foot, in a sense, is the first step of the infrastructure. The second step of the infrastructure needs to take care of the range extension. See we're bound by today's technology on batteries, which is about 120 miles if you want to stay within reasonable space and weight limitations. 120 miles is a good enough range for a lot of people. But you never want to get stuck. So what we added is a second element to our network, which is a battery swap system. You drive. You take your depleted battery out. A full battery comes on. And you drive on. You don't do it as a human being. You do it as a machine. It looks like a car wash. You come into your car wash. And a plate comes up, holds your battery, takes it out, puts it back in, and within two minutes you're back on the road and you can go again. If you had charge spots everywhere, and you had battery swap stations everywhere, how often would you do it? And it ends up that you'd do swapping less times than you stop at a gas station. As a matter of fact, we added to the contract. We said that if you stop to swap your battery more than 50 times a year we start paying you money because it's an inconvenience.
最後一哩, 或說最後一步 就是基礎建設的第一步 第二步就是,基礎建設需要做到 範圍的擴大 電池發展受限於現今的科技 已一般空間、重量來算 大概是120英里 120英里對大部份人來說已經足夠 但沒人希望途中突然沒電 所以我們的網路加進第二部份 也就是電池交換站 你開車,電池沒電了 到交換站換電池,繼續開 非常機械化的過程 有點像是洗車服務 所以將板子打開,電池取車,充電放入 不到兩分鐘就可以上路了 就這麼簡單 如果到哪都有充電處、 到處都有電池交換站 那你多久需要充電一次? 結果是,比你到加油站的數量還少 事實上,我們契約中有一條 說明,如果你一年需要到充電站超過50次, 我們就會付你錢 因為這樣對你不便利
Then we looked at the question of the affordability. We looked at the question, what happens when the battery is disconnected from the car. What is the cost of that battery? Everybody tells us batteries are so expensive. What we found out, when you move from molecules to electrons, something interesting happens. We can go back to the original economics of the car and look at it again. The battery is not the gas tank, in a sense. Remember in your car you have a gas tank. You have the crude oil. And you have refining and delivery of that crude oil as what we call petrol or gasoline. The battery in this sense, is the crude oil. We have a battery bay. It costs the same hundred dollars as the gas tank. But the crude oil is replaced with a battery. Just it doesn't burn. It consumes itself step after step after step. It has 2,000 life cycles these days. And so it's sort of a mini well. We were asked in the past when we bought an electric car to pay for the entire well, for the life of the car. Nobody wants to buy a mini well when they buy a car. In a sense what we've done is we've created a new consumable.
再來,我們來看價格問題 我們研究,如果電池與車子分離 會如何? 那電池花費是多少? 每個人都反應電池太貴 我們發現,如果你從分子移到電子 有趣的事就發生了 我們回到原本的汽車經濟情況,重新審視 電池與油箱,基本上是不同的 記得汽車是使用油箱 獲取原油後 提煉、運輸,原油就變成 我們所使用的汽油 電池某方面來說,就像原油 我們有電池海灣,與油箱的花費相同 幾百塊而已 但電池取代石油的功能 不會燃燒,電池會一步步 自己耗損 現在的電池可以充電兩千次 就像個小油井 之前,我們買電動車時 等於是負擔整個油井的價錢 沒有人買車時,想花這麼多錢個小油井 所以我們做的是 創造一種新耗材
You, today, buy gasoline miles. And we created electric miles. And the price of electric miles ends up being a very interesting number. Today 2010, in volume, when we come to market, it is eight cents a mile. Those of you who have a hard time calculating what that means -- in the average consumer environment we're in in the U.S. 20 miles per gallon that's a buck 50, a buck 60 a gallon. That's cheaper than today's gasoline, even in the U.S. In Europe where taxes are in place, that's the equivalent to a minus 60 dollar barrel. But e-miles follow Moore's Law. They go from eight cents a mile in 2010, to four cents a mile in 2015, to two cents a mile by 2020. Why? Because batteries life cycle improve -- a bit of improvement on energy density, which reduces the price. And these prices are actually with clean electrons. We do not use any electrons that come from coal. So in a sense this is an absolute zero-carbon, zero-fossil fuel electric mile at two cents a mile by 2020. Now even if we get to 40 miles per gallon by 2020, which is our desire. Imagine only 40 miles per gallon cars would be on the road. That is an 80 cent gallon. An 80 cent gallon means, if the entire Pacific would convert to crude oil, and we'd let any oil company bring it out and refine it, they still can't compete with two cents a mile. That's a new economic factor, which is fascinating to most people.
現在大家買的是汽油里程 我們就創造電子里程 電子里程價錢加起來是個有趣的數字 2010的今日,大量來說 我們的市場價格是一英里8分美元 如果你數學不好的 美國目前平均 汽油花費是 一加侖20英里,1.5到1.6美金 比油價便宜多了,連在美國也一樣 歐洲因為稅法嚴格 計算起來等於一桶負60元美金 但電子里程根據摩爾定律 2010年的一哩8分美金 到2010年變成4分 2020年只有2分美金 為什麼?因為電池壽命增加- 能源密集的技術進步,讓價格降低 這些價格都是乾淨的電子 完全沒用到煤炭 這樣看來 這是完全無碳、無化石燃料的 電子里程在2020年,一哩只要2分錢 如果順利的話,2020年的石油 若達到一加崙40哩 想像一加崙40哩在路上跑 一加崙等於80分 一加崙80分等於是等個太平洋 都變成原油才能達成 然後讓石油公司獲取、提煉 還是無法與一哩2分錢比較 這是個新的經濟因素 大部分人都感興趣
Now this would have been a wonderful paper. That's how I solved it in my head. It was a white paper I handed out to governments. And some governments told me that it's fascinating that the younger generation actually thinks about these things. (Laughter) Until I got to the true young global leader, Shimon Peres, President of Israel, and he ran a beautiful manipulation on me. First he let me go to the prime minister of the country, who told me, if you can find the money you need for this network, 200 million dollars, and if you can find a car company that will build that car in mass volume, in two million cars -- that's what we needed in Israel -- I'll give you country to invest the 200 million into. Peres thought that was a great idea.
寫成論文發表應該也不錯 這是我腦子裡的想法,送給一些政府看的是一份白皮書 有些政府官員告訴我,他們覺得很有趣 年輕人竟然會去關心這種事 (笑聲) 直到我連絡上 真正、年輕的全球領袖-以色列總統西蒙‧佩雷斯(Shimon Peres) 他後來擺了我一道 首先他讓我去找總理 總理告訴我,如果我能籌到建構這網路所需的 兩億美金 還有,找到一家車廠 願意大量生產以色列所需的 兩百萬台電動車 他就給我一個國家讓我實行這計畫 佩雷斯覺得這是個好點子
So we went out, and we looked at all the car companies. We sent letters to all the car companies. Three of them never showed up. One of them asked us if we would stay with hybrids and they would give us a discount. But one of them Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Renault and Nissan, when asked about hybrids said something very fascinating. He said hybrids are like mermaids. When you want a fish you get a woman and when you need a woman you get a fish. (Laughter) And Ghosn came up and said, "I have the car, Mr. Peres; I will build you the cars." And actually true to form, Renault has put a billion and a half dollars in building nine different types of cars that fit this kind of model that will come into the market in mass volume -- mass volume being the first year, 100 thousand cars. It's the first mass-volume electric car, zero-emission electric car in the market. I was running, as Chris said, to be the CEO of a large software company called SAP And then Peres said, "Well won't you run this project?" And I said, "I'm ready for CEO" And he said, "Oh no no no no no. You've got to explain to me, what is more important than saving your country and saving the world, that you would go and do?"
所以我們開始尋找車商 寄信給他們 有三家完全不搭理,其中一家說 如果我們繼續用油電混燃車(hybrid),就給我們打折 但其中一位,雷諾-日產的總裁卡洛斯·戈恩(Carlos Ghosn) 說了一段我們覺得很棒的話 他說,油電混燃車就像美人魚 你要魚的時候,得到的是美人 你要美人的時候,得到的是魚 (笑聲) 戈恩就說: 「我有車,佩雷斯總統,我可以幫你製造車子」 這是真的,雷諾投入了15億資金 生產了九種不同款式的電動車 將會大量上市 第一年的數量將達十萬部 這是第一批大量生產的電動車 零排放量的電動車上市了 如Chris介紹,我當時 正在爭取SAP(軟體公司)執行長的位子 然後佩雷斯要求我負責這個專案 我說,我已經要接任執行長了,他告訴我, 「不不不,除非你能告訴我,」 「有什麼事會比拯救你的國家、世界更重要,」 「而且你非做不可的?」
And I had to quit and come and do this thing called A Better Place. We then decided to scale it up. We went to other countries. As I said we went to Denmark. And Denmark set this beautiful policy; it's called the IQ test. It's inversely proportional to taxes. They put 180 percent tax on gasoline cars and zero tax on zero-emission cars. So if you want to buy a gasoline car in Denmark, it costs you about 60,000 Euros. If you buy our car it's about 20,000 Euros. If you fail the IQ test they ask you to leave the country. (Laughter)
所以我辭了CEO,專心弄A Better Place公司 後來我們決定擴大規模 我們到其他國家--丹麥 丹麥有個美妙的政策 叫智力測驗 測驗成績與稅額成反比 他們對汽車課了180%的稅 零排放量的車就免稅 在丹麥,買部汽車要花六萬歐元 買電動車只要兩萬歐元 如果智力測驗結果太低,就會被逼離丹麥 (笑聲)
We then were sort of coined as the guys who run only in small islands. I know most people don't think of Israel as a small island, but Israel is an island -- it's a transportation island. If your car is driving outside Israel it's been stolen. (Laughter) If you're thinking about it in terms of islands, we decided to go to the biggest island that we could find, and that was Australia. The third country we announced was Australia. It's got three centers -- in Brisbane, in Melbourne, in Sydney -- and one freeway, one electric freeway that connects them. The next island was not too hard to find, and that was Hawaii. We decided to come into the U.S. and pick the two best places -- the one where you didn't need any range extension. Hawaii you can drive around the island on one battery. And if you really have a long day you can switch, and keep on driving around the island.
大家對我們的印象就是 只在小島活動而已 我知道大部分人,不認為以色列是小島 但它的確是座島,一座運輸島 如果發現你的車開出以色列,一定是被偷了 (笑聲) 如果要以島作為目標 我們決定去世上最大的島 就是澳洲了,第三個目的地就是澳洲 它有三大城: 墨爾本、布里斯本、雪梨 一條電動高速公路連結三地 下一座島 不難找,就是夏威夷 我們決定進軍美國 選了最棒的兩個地點 第一個地點,不需要擴大規模 在夏威夷,一顆電池就能跑整座島 如果要開一整天,頂多再換上一顆電池 就能繼續開車環島
The second one was the San Francisco Bay Area where Gavin Newsom created a beautiful policy across all the mayors. He decided that he's going to take over the state, unofficially, and then officially, and then created this beautiful Region One policy. In the San Francisco Bay Area not only do you have the highest concentration of Priuses, but you also have the perfect range extender. It's called the other car. As we stared scaling it up we looked at what is the problem to come up to the U.S.? Why is this a big issue? And the most fascinating thing we've learned is that, when you have small problems on the individual level, like the price of gasoline to drive every morning. You don't notice it, but when the aggregate comes up you're dead. Alright?
第二個地點,是舊金山灣區 市長Gavin Newsom定了個全新政策 他決定掌管整個加州 先非正式接收、再正式接收 這美妙的政策叫第一區政策 舊金山灣區有密度最高的 豐田(油電兩用車Prius)數量 還有最完美的增程引擎(電力用完後使用燃油) 被稱為「另類車」 我們開始擴大規模 想想美國所面臨的問題 到底是什麼? 我們所學到最有趣的事情就是 當你以個人層面來思考小問題 像是每天要加的油價 平常不會注意,但所有油價加總起來 會嚇死人,對吧?
So the price of oil, much like lots of other curves that we've seen, goes along a depletion curve. The foundation of this curve is that we keep losing the wells that are close to the ground. And we keep getting wells that are farther away from the ground. It becomes more and more and more expensive to dig them out. You think, well it's been up, it's been down, its been up, it's going to keep on going up and down. Here is the problem: at 147 dollars a barrel, which we were in six months ago, the U.S. spent a ton of money to get oil. Then we lost our economy and we went back down to 47 -- sometimes it's 40, sometimes it's 50. Now we're running a stimulus package. It's called the trillion-dollar stimulus package. We're going to revive the economy. Hopefully it happens between now and 2015, somewhere in that space. What happens when the economy recovers? By 2015 we would have had at least 250 million new cars even at the pace we're going at right now. That's another 30 percent demand on oil. That is another 25 million barrels a day. That's all the U.S. usage today. In other words at some point when we've recovered we go up to the peak. And then we do the OPEC stimulus package also known as 200 dollars a barrel. We take our money and we give it away. You know what happens at that point? We go back down. It's going to go up and down. And the downs are going to be much longer and the ups are going to be much shorter.
所以油價, 如我們看到的曲線 是呈現消減狀態的 曲線幅度之所以越來越大,是因為接近地面的石油漸漸挖光了 我們就必須挖的更深 所以開挖石油越來越貴 想想看,曲線上升又下降 上升過了,又會下降再上升 問題來了: 半年前的一桶147美元價格 美國花了一大把錢獲得石油 經濟蕭條後回到47美元 偶爾在40到50元間浮動 現在提倡的振興經濟方案 一兆元振興經濟方案 我們拿來救經濟,希望到2015年能達成 約五年的時間 那經濟復甦後會發生什麼事呢? 到2015年,我們會生產至少兩億五千萬部新車 以目前的速度推算 石油的供應會增加30% 等於一天需要額外2500萬桶石油 這是現今全美的需求量 換句話說,當我們景氣回升到頂點 當我們實行石油輸出國家組織(OPEC)的 一桶200美元刺激方案 錢花掉後,還是回到原點 到時候會發生什麼事? 我們會走下坡,上上下下 下坡將會更久 復原將會更慢
And that's the difference between problems that are additive, like CO2, which we go slowly up and then we tip, and problems that are depletive, in which we lose what we have, which oscillate, and they oscillate until we lose everything we've got. Now we actually looked at what the answer would be. Right? Remember in the campaign: one million hybrid cars by 2015. That is 0.5 percent of the U.S. oil consumption. That is oh point oh well percent of the rest of the world. That won't do much difference.
這之間的差距就是附加性的問題: 像二氧化碳,慢慢增加後到達頂點; 以及耗減性的問題: 我們資源慢慢耗盡; 兩種問題造成曲線的不斷波動 直到失去所有東西為止 所以我們開始找尋答案 是吧?記住這口號,2015年以前, 油電混燃車數量將達一百萬部 這是美國石油耗量的0.5% 其他國家的零點零幾 改變實在不大
We looked at an MIT study: ten million electric cars on the global roads. Ten million out of 500 million we will add between now and then. That is the most pessimistic number you can have. It's also the most optimistic number because it means we will scale this industry from 100 thousand cars is 2011, to 10 million cars by 2016 -- 100 x growth in less than five years. You have to remember that the world today is bringing in so many cars. We have 10 million cars by region. That's an enormous amount of cars.
來看麻省理工學院的研究 全球一千萬部電動車在跑 我們目標五億台電動車中的一千萬部而已 感覺起來離目標還很遠 但這數字同時也表示 我們對於未來發展有樂觀的前景 從2011年的十萬部車 到2016年的一千萬部車- 不到五年,100倍的成長 要想想,世界對於車子的需求有多龐大 各地區約一千萬部 車子的數量很驚人
China is adding those cars -- India, Russia, Brazil. We have all these regions. Europe has solved it. They just put a tax on gasoline. They'll be the first in line to get off because their prices are high. China solves it by an edict. At some point they'll just declare that no gasoline car will come into a city, and that will be it. The Indians don't even understand why we think of it as a problem because most people in India fill two or three gallons every time. For them to get a battery that goes 120 miles is an extension on range, not a reduction in range. We're the only ones who don't have the price set right. We don't have the industry set right. We don't have any incentive to go and resolve it across the U.S.
中國的汽車數量增加, 還有印度、俄羅斯、巴西 這些地方都要算進來 歐洲已經解決了,他們增加石油稅 將會率先解決石油問題 因為油價過高 中國只要一個政策下去便能解決, 只要宣佈不再進口石油,一下就能解決了 印度人,還沒意識到發生什麼事 印度大部分人,每次只加2到3加侖的油 對他們來說,買顆會跑120哩的電池 距離不夠長,其實用不到這麼多 我們幾乎是唯一油價沒定對、 工業設置也不對的國家 我們根本也沒有誘因 去解決這問題
Now where is the car industry on that? Very interesting. The car industry has been focused just on themselves. They basically looked at it and said, "Car 1.0 we'll solve everything within the car itself." No infrastructure, no problem. We forgot about the entire chain around us. All this stuff that happens around. We are looking at the emergence of a car 2.0 -- a whole new market, a whole new business model. The business model in which the money that is actually coming in, to drive the car -- the minutes, the miles if you want, that you are all familiar with -- subsidize the price of the car, just like cellphones. You'll pay for the miles. And some of it will go back to the car maker. Some of it will go back to your own pocket. But our cars are actually going to be cheaper than gasoline cars.
那汽車工業的立場呢? 很有趣的是,汽車工業只專注於它們自己 他們隨便研究了一下,就覺得 新版汽車1.0就會解決目前的問題 不需要基礎建設、沒有問題 我們忘了身邊整個大環節 身旁已經發生的所有事 我們現在已經有2.0版的車了 一個新市場、新商業模型 這商業模型,其實會讓車子 越開越便宜 里程數、分鐘數這些 你們都清楚的概念 是可以補貼車價的 就像手機,里程數也是用付的 一部份會回到車商身上 一部分回到自己口袋 但電動車將會比汽車便宜
You're looking at a world where cars are matched with windmills. In Denmark, we will drive all the cars in Denmark from windmills, not from oil. In Israel, we've asked to put a solar farm in the south of Israel. And people said, "Oh that's a very very large space that you're asking for." And we said, "What if we had proven that in the same space we found oil for the country for the next hundred years?" And they said, "We tried. There isn't any." We said, "No no, but what if we prove it?" And they said, "Well you can dig." And we decided to dig up, instead of digging down. These are perfect matches to one another.
未來的世界,車子將會是風力發電 在丹麥,大家所開的車 都來自風力發電,而非石油 在以色列,我們要求在南部設置 太陽能電廠 有人質疑:「你要求的土地很大一塊欸」 我們就問:「如果我們能證明」 「該地有可供我國下一世紀的石油量呢?」 他們說:「我們調查過了,沒石油」 我們說:「不,我可以證明有。」 「那你們開挖吧。」但我們決定往上建造(太陽能廠) 而非向下開挖 石油與電力是相匹配的
Now all you need is about 10 percent of the electricity generated. Think of it as a project that spans over about 10 years. That's one percent a year. Now when we're looking at solving big problems, we need to start thinking in two numbers. And those are not 20 percent by 2020. The two numbers are zero -- as in zero footprint or zero oil -- and scale it infinity. And when we go to COP15 at the end of this year we can't stop thinking of padding CO2. We have to start thinking about giving kickers to countries that are willing to go to this kind of scale.
而且只需要 總發電量的10% 當成是個可運行十年的計畫 一年是1% 現在我們來看要怎麼解決大問題 我們必須從兩個數字來考量 這兩個數字不是2020年達到20% 這兩個數字分別是零- 0碳足跡、0石油; 然後乘以無限大∞ 到哥本哈根開第15屆氣候變遷會議(COP15)時 我們不能只想著漸增的二氧化碳量 我們必須想一些方法,讓世界各國 能自發地開始做改變
One car emits four tons. And actually 700 and change million cars today emit 2.8 billion tons of CO2. That's, in the additive, about 25 percent of our problem. Cars and trucks add up to about 25 percent of the world's CO2 emissions. We have to come and attack this problem with a focus, with an effort that actually says, we're going to go to zero before the world ends. I actually shared that with some legislators here in the U.S. I shared it with a gentleman called Bobby Kennedy Jr., who is one of my idols. I told him one of the reasons that his uncle was remembered is because he said we're going to send a man to the moon, and we'll do it by the end of the decade. We didn't say we're going to send a man 20 percent to the moon. And there will be about a 20 percent chance we'll recover him. (Laughter)
一輛車有四噸的排放量 現在的七億多輛汽車 排放28億二氧化碳 這是附加性問題,僅是我們所面臨問題的25% 汽車、卡車加起來約是全世界二氧化碳排放量的25% 我們需要一同解決這個問題 專心、致力於這個目標 世界毀滅前,排放量降到零 我與一些美國國會議員討論過 有位羅伯特甘迺迪二世,他是我的偶像 我告訴他,他的叔叔(甘迺迪總統) 被世人記著的原因之一 是因為他當初堅決要在十年之內 將人類送上月球並安全地返回 他並沒有說,我們送一個人的20%上月球 然後他回來的機率有20% (笑聲)
He actually shared with me another story, which is from about 200 years ago. 200 years ago, in Parliament, in Great Britain, there was a long argument over economy versus morality. 25 percent -- just like 25 percent emissions today comes from cars -- 25 percent of their energy for the entire industrial world in the U.K. came from a source of energy that was immoral: human slaves. And there was an argument. Should we stop using slaves? And what would it do to our economy? And people said, "Well we need to take time to do it. Let's not do it immediately. Maybe we free the kids and keep the slaves. And after a month of arguments they decided to stop slavery, and the industrial revolution started within less than one year. And the U.K. had 100 years of economic growth. We have to make the right moral decision. We have to make it immediately. We need to have presidential leadership just like we had in Israel that said we will end oil. And we need to do it not within 20 years or 50 years, but within this presidential term because if we don't, we will lose our economy, right after we'd lost our morality.
羅伯特告訴了我一個200年前的故事 200年前,英國的國會 有個很長的辯論 有關於經濟與道德 如現今我們有25%的排放量來自汽車 當時全英國的工業, 有25%的力量來源 都來自非常不道德的 奴隸市場 所以辯論是,我們是否該停用奴隸? 這樣對經濟有何影響? 有些人說:「我們應該一步步來」 「也許先從解放童工開始,」 「奴隸還是留著。」 長達一個月的辯論,他們決定禁止使用奴隸 之後一年內,工業革命開始了 而英國就有了100年的經濟成長 我們必須做出對的道德決定 並且需要立刻決定 我們需要總統級的領導 就像以色列決定停用石油 我們需要在這個總統任期內達成 而非20、50年 如果不這麼做,我們在失去經濟能力前 將先失去我們的道德觀
Thank you all very much. (Applause)
謝謝各位 (掌聲)