We need to build a weather service for water. Yet, until we collectively demand accountability, the incentives to fund it will not exist.
我們必須為水打造氣象台。 除非我們集體要求責任歸屬, 否則資助的動機就不會存在。
The first time I spoke at a conference was here at TED, eight years ago. Fresh out of grad school, little did I know that in those few minutes onstage, I was framing the questions I was going to be asked for the next decade. And, like too many 20-somethings, I expected to solve the world's problems -- more specifically, the world's water problems -- with my technology. I had a lot to learn.
我第一次在研討會上演講 就是在這裡,八年前的 TED 大會。 初出茅廬的研究生,一點都不知道 在台上的短短幾分鐘, 會讓自己在未來十年, 陷入無窮盡的詢問。 就像太多二十多歲的人, 我認為自己可以解決全世界的問題, 具體一點說,全世界的水問題, 只要用我的科技。 還早得很。
It was seductive, believing that our biggest water quality problems persist because they're so hard to identify. And I presumed that we just needed simpler, faster and more affordable sensors. I was wrong. While it's true that managing tomorrow's water risk is going to require better data and more technology, today we're barely using the little water data that we have. Our biggest water problems persist because of what we don't do and the problems we fail to acknowledge. There's actually little question about what today's water data is telling us to do as a species: we need to conserve more, and we need to pollute less. But today's data is not going to help us forecast the emerging risks facing businesses and markets. It's rapidly becoming useless for that. It used to carry more value, but it's never actually told us with any real accuracy how much water we have or what's in it.
這想法很誘人, 相信我們最大的 水質問題之所以持續, 是因為這些問題很難被發現。 而我假設 我們只需要用更簡單、 更快、更便宜的感測器。 我錯了。 確實,要管理明天的水風險 需要更好的數據及更多的科技, 今天我們卻極少運用 我們現有的少量水數據。 我們最大的水問題會持續, 是因為我們不肯做該做的, 以及我們未能意識到的問題。 無庸置疑, 今天的水數據很清楚地告訴我們 身為一種生物我們應該要做什麼: 我們需要省更多水, 我們需要減少污染。 但是今天的數據不會幫助我們預測 企業及市場面臨的新興風險。 它很快就變得無用。 以前數據很有價值, 但是它從來沒有 真正準確無誤地告訴過我們 我們有多少水 或水裡有什麼。
Let's consider the past decade of water usage statistics from each of the G20 nations. Now, what these numbers do not tell you is that none of these countries directly measures how much water they use. These are all estimates, and they're based on outdated models that don't consider the climate crisis, nor do they consider its impact on water.
我們來研究一下過去十年 二十國集團內 每一個國家的水使用統計。 這些數字不會告訴你的, 是這些國家都沒有 直接測量他們使用多少水。 這些數字都是估計值, 而且都是基於過時的模型來算, 這些過時的模型沒有考慮氣候危機, 也沒有考慮氣候危機對水的影響。
In 2015, Chennai, India's sixth-largest city, was hit with the worst floods it had seen in a century. Today, its water reservoirs are nearly dry. It took three years to get here, three years of subaverage rainfall. Now, that's faster than most nations tabulate their national water data, including the US. And although there were forecasts that predicted severe shortages of water in Chennai, none of them could actually help us pinpoint exactly when or where this was going to happen. This is a new type of water problem, because the rate at which every aspect of our water cycle changes is accelerating. As a recent UN warning this month revealed, we are now facing one new climate emergency every single week.
2015 年,清奈 這個印度第六大城市, 遭受到百年來最慘的洪災。 今天,清奈水庫幾乎乾涸。 這個過程只花了三年時間, 三年低於平均的降雨量。 這比其他國家 列表水數據的速度還快, 包括美國。 雖然有各種預測 說清奈的水會嚴重短缺, 這些預測都沒有 實際幫助我們確切指出 這種情況會發生在何時或何處。 這是一種新型的水問題, 因為從每一層面來看, 我們的水循環改變 都在加速。 就像本月最新的聯合國警告顯示的, 我們現在每一個星期 都要面對新的氣候緊急情況。
There are greater uncertainties ahead for water quality. It's rare in most countries for most water bodies to be tested for more than a handful of contaminants in a year. Instead of testing, we use what's called the "dilution model" to manage pollution. Now, imagine I took an Olympic-sized swimming pool, I filled it with fresh water and I added one drop of mercury. That would dilute down to one part per billion mercury, which is well within what the World Health Organization considers safe. But if there was any unforeseen drop in how much water was available -- less groundwater, less stream flow, less water in the pool -- less dilution would take place, and things would get more toxic. So this is how most countries are managing pollution. They use this model to tell them how much pollution is safe. And it has clear weaknesses, but it worked well enough when we had abundant water and consistent weather patterns. Now that we don't, we're going to need to invest and develop new data-collection strategies. But before we do that, we have to start acting on the data we already have.
未來的水質不確定性更大。 大多數國家絕少每年都檢測 水體內的幾種污染物。 代替測試的是用我們所謂的稀釋模型 做污染管理。 現在想像一下我拿一座 奧運比賽級的游泳池, 我把它用水裝滿, 然後加一滴水銀進去。 那會把水銀濃度稀釋到十億分之一, 這完全在世界衛生組織的 安全標準之內。 但是如果可用之水無預警下降—— 地下水變少了,河川水變少了, 池子的水變少了—— 稀釋作用也跟著變小, 東西就會變得比較毒。 而這就是多數國家管理污染的方法。 他們用這樣的模型來判定 多少量的污染是安全的。 這有很明顯的弱點, 但是效果很好—— 只要我們有充足的水量 及穩定的氣候型態。 現在情況不穩了, 我們需要投資及發展 新的數據收集策略。 但是在我們著手之前, 要先從現有的數據下手。
This is a jet fuel fire. As many of you may be aware, jet fuel emissions play an enormous role in climate change. What you might not be aware of is that the US Department of Defense is the world's largest consumer of jet fuel. And when they consume jet fuel, they mandate the use of the firefighting foam pictured here, which contains a class of chemicals called PFAS. Nobody uses more of this foam than the US Department of Defense, and every time it's used, PFAS finds its way into our water systems. Globally, militaries have been using this foam since the 1970s. We know PFAS causes cancer, birth defects, and it's now so pervasive in the environment that we seem to find it in nearly every living thing we test, including us. But so far, the US Department of Defense has not been held accountable for PFAS contamination, nor has it been held liable. And although there's an effort underway to phase out these firefighting foams, they're not embracing safer, effective alternatives. They're actually using other PFAS molecules, which may, for all we know, carry worse health consequences.
這是噴射機燃油火災。 在座很多人都知道, 噴射機燃油的廢氣排放 在氣候變遷上扮演很大的角色。 但你們大概不知道美國國防部 是全世界最大的噴射機燃油使用者。 他們用噴射機燃油的時候, 他們會強制使用圖中的滅火泡沫, 這裡面含著一類稱為 含氟表面活性劑 (PFAS) 的化學物。 沒有人比美國國防部 更愛用這種泡沫, 而每次使用 PFAS, 它都會找到方法進入水系統中。 全球的軍隊自 1970 年起 就開始使用這種泡沫。 我們知道 PFAS 會導致 癌症、先天缺陷, 而且現在因為太普遍存在於環境中, 幾乎我們測過的 每一種生物裡都可以找到它, 包括我們身上。 但是到目前為止, 我們仍沒有追究美國國防部 為 PFAS 污染的責任, 國防部也沒有承擔任何責任。 雖然目前正在努力 逐步淘汰這些消防泡沫, 他們也沒有使用 更安全更有效的替代品。 他們其實正在用 其他種類的 PFAS 分子, 那種東西據我們所知, 對健康的危害還更糟。
So today, government accountability is eroding to the point of elimination, and the risk of liability from water pollution is vanishing. What types of incentives does this create for investing in our water future? Over the past decade, the average early stage global investment in early stage water technology companies has totaled less than 30 million dollars every year. That's 0.12 percent of global venture capital for early stage companies. And public spending is not going up nearly fast enough. And a closer look at it reveals that water is not a priority. In 2014, the US federal government was spending 11 dollars per citizen on water infrastructure, versus 251 dollars on IT infrastructure. So when we don't use the data we have, we don't encourage investment in new technologies, we don't encourage more data collection and we certainly don't encourage investment in securing a water future.
所以,今天政府的責任歸屬 已經被侵蝕到幾乎不存在, 而水污染的責任風險也正漸漸消失。 這樣能為投資水未來 創造出什麼樣的誘因? 過去十年,平均全球早期資金 投資在初創階段的水科技公司, 每年總計少於三千萬美金。 那只佔全球創投 在初創公司投資的 0.12%。 而政府公用事業支出增加也不夠快。 仔細看就會發現 水根本不是優先項目。 2014 年,美國聯邦政府 只花了每位公民 11 元 在水基礎建設上, 卻花了每人 251 元在資訊科技上。 所以如果我們不使用現有的數據, 我們就不鼓勵投資新科技, 我們就不鼓勵收集更多數據, 我們當然也不鼓勵 為確保水的未來而進行的投資。
So are we doomed? Part of what I'm still learning is how to balance the doom and the urgency with things we can do, because Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion don't want our hope -- they want us to act.
所以我們是否注定失敗? 我還在繼續學習的部分, 是如何平衡厄運 及我們可以做點什麼的急迫感, 因為格蕾塔·通貝里 及英國環保組織「反抗滅絕」 不要我們的希望,他們要我們行動。
So what can we do? It's hard to imagine life without a weather service, but before modern weather forecasting, we had no commercial air travel, it was common for ships to be lost at sea, and a single storm could produce a food shortage. Once we had radio and telegraph networks, all that was necessary to solve these problems was tracking the movement of storms. And that laid the foundation for a global data collection effort, one that every household and every business depends upon today. And this was as much the result of coordinated and consistent data collection as it was the result of producing a culture that saw greater value in openly assessing and sharing everything that it could find out and discover about the risks we face.
所以我們能做什麼? 我們很難想像沒有氣象台的生活, 但是在現代氣象預測出現之前, 我們沒有商務航空, 船隻很容易在大海中失蹤, 而且只要一場暴風就可以鬧飢荒。 一旦我們有了無線電及電報網路, 只需要追蹤暴風行徑 就能解決這些問題。 這也為全球數據收集工作打下基礎, 目前這已成為家家戶戶 及各種企業不可或缺的項目。 這是齊心不停收集數據的結果, 這也是因為我們產生了一種文化, 看到公開評估及共享 我們找到及發現所面臨的風險 反而有更大的價值。
A global weather service for water would help us forecast water shortages. It could help us implement rationing well before reservoirs run dry. It could help us detect contamination before it spreads. It could protect our supply chains, secure our food supplies, and, perhaps most importantly, it would enable the precise estimation of risk necessary to insure against it.
全球水氣象服務 可以幫助我們預測缺水; 可以早早在水庫乾涸之前 就幫助我們實施限水; 可以在污染擴散前先讓我們偵測到; 可以保護我們的供應鏈, 保障糧食供應, 以及,或許是最重要的, 就是它能準確估計出風險, 確保能與之對抗。
We know we can do this because we've already done it with weather. But it's going to require resources. We need to encourage greater investment in water. Investors, venture capitalists: a portion of your funds and portfolios should be dedicated to water. Nothing is more valuable and, after all, businesses are going to need to understand water risks in order to remain competitive in the world we are entering. Aside from venture capital, there are also lots of promising government programs that encourage economic development through tax incentives.
我們知道我們能做到這一點, 因為我們已經拿氣象來做了。 但是這需要資源。 我們必須鼓勵增加對水的投資。 投資人、創投業者: 你們的基金及投資組合 有一部分應該分配給水。 沒有什麼比水更有價值, 而且,企業終究會需要了解水風險 以在我們要進入的世界保持競爭力。 除了創投, 還有很多大有前景的政府計畫 透過稅收優惠鼓勵經濟發展。
A new option in the US that my company is using is called "opportunity zones." They offer favorable tax treatment for investing capital gains in designated distressed and low-income areas. Now, these are areas that are also facing staggering water risk, so this creates crucial incentives to work directly with the communities who need help most.
在美國有一個選項, 我的公司正在用, 叫做「機會區」。 他們提供資本利得優惠稅收政策, 讓你投資在指定的貧困和低收入區。 這些地方 也面臨巨大的水風險, 所以這創造出重要的誘因, 直接與最需要幫助的社區合作。
And if you're not looking to make this type of investment but you own land in the US, did you know that you can leverage your land to conserve water quality permanently with a conservation easement? You can assign the perpetual right to a local land trust to conserve your land and set specific water quality goals. And if you meet those goals, you can be rewarded with a substantial tax discount every year.
如果你不打算投資在這方面, 但是你在美國有塊地, 你可知道你能用你的土地 來永久保護水質? 只要運用保育地役權。 你可以讓與永久權利 給當地的土地信託 以保育你的土地, 並設定具體的水質目標。 如果你達到這些目標, 就可以每年獲得一筆可觀的減稅額。
How many areas could our global community protect through these and other programs? They're powerful because they offer the access to real property necessary to lay the foundation for a global weather service for water. But this can only work if we use these programs as they are intended and not as mere vehicles for tax evasion. When the conservation easement was established, nobody could anticipate how ingrained in environmental movements corporate polluters would become. And we've become accustomed to companies talking about the climate crisis while doing nothing about it. This has undermined the legacy and the impact of these programs, but it also makes them ripe for reclamation. Why not use conservation easements as they were intended, to set and reach ambitious conservation goals? Why not create opportunities in opportunity zones? Because fundamentally, water security requires accountability. Accountability is not corporate polluters sponsoring environmental groups and museums. Those are conflicts of interest.
我們全球共同體透過這些 及其他計畫能保護多少地區? 這些計畫非常有力, 因為藉此能取得不動產的使用權, 為全球水氣象服務奠基。 但是這只在我們使用計畫的本意, 而不是拿來當逃稅的工具時才有用。 保育地役權創建之時, 沒有人料到製造污染的企業 是如何深植於環保運動中。 我們早已習慣看到 各個公司談論氣候危機, 卻不做出任何行動。 此舉逐漸破壞這些計畫的 名聲及影響力, 但也使重新再造的時機成熟。 為什麼不利用保育地役權的本意 去設立並達成遠大的保育目標? 為什麼不在機會區製造機會? 因為保障水資源一定要有責任歸屬。 責任歸屬不是污染的企業 贊助幾個環保團體 及博物館就算了。 這些都是利益衝突。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Accountability is: making the risk of liability too expensive to continue polluting and wasting our water. We can't keep settling for words. It's time to act. And where better to start than with our biggest polluters, particularly the US Department of Defense, which is taxpayer-funded. Who and what are we protecting when US soldiers, their families and the people who live near US military bases abroad are all drinking toxic water? Global security can no longer remain at odds with protecting our planet or our collective health. Our survival depends on it.
責任歸屬是: 把責任風險弄得很貴, 貴到不值得再繼續污染 及浪費我們的水。 我們不能再安於口號, 該採取行動了。 哪裡會比從我們 最大的污染者開始更好? 尤其是美國國防部, 它可是納稅人資助的。 我們到底在保護誰,在保護什麼, 如果美國士兵及眷屬 及住在各國美軍基地附近的人 都在喝有毒的水? 全球安全不可能與保護我們的星球 或我們全體的健康相違背。 我們的存亡取決於它。
Similarly, agriculture in most countries depends on taxpayer-funded subsidies that are paid to farmers to secure and stabilize food supplies. These incentives are a crucial leverage point for us, because agriculture is responsible for consuming 70 percent of all the water we use every year. Fertilizer and pesticide runoff are the two biggest sources of water pollution. Let's restructure these subsidies to demand better water efficiency and less pollution.
同樣地, 大部分國家的農業 都仰賴由稅金而來的補貼, 支付給農民以確保並穩定食物供應。 這些激勵措施是美國重要的手段, 因為農業要用掉 我們每年用水量的 70%。 肥料及農藥逕流 是兩個最大的水污染來源。 讓我們重新調整這些補貼, 以要求更高的用水效率 及更少的污染。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Finally: we can't expect progress if we're unwilling to confront the conflicts of interest that suppress science, that undermine innovation and that discourage transparency. It is in the public interest to measure and to share everything we can learn and discover about the risks we face in water. Reality does not exist until it's measured. It doesn't just take technology to measure it. It takes our collective will.
最後, 我們不能指望進步, 如果我們不願意面對 壓制科學、 侵蝕創新 以及阻礙透明度的利益衝突。 公共利益就是 測量並共享我們得知及發現 我們面臨的水風險。 現實並不存在,除非測量它。 我們不能只靠科技去測量它。 還需要我們的集體意志。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)