Because of what I'm about to say, I really should establish my green credentials. When I was a small boy, I took my pledge as an American, to save and faithfully defend from waste the natural resources of my country, its air, soil and minerals, its forests, waters and wildlife. And I've stuck to that. Stanford, I majored in ecology and evolution. 1968, I put out the Whole Earth Catalog. Was "mister natural" for a while.
由於我接下來所要說的, 我實在應該建立一點我的綠色憑證。 當我還是一個小男孩時,我曾向自己立下誓言 作為一個美國人,我要保存我的國家 要忠實捍衛我國自然資源,免於浪費 要保存這片土地上的空氣,土壤,礦物,森林,水,和野生動物 而我也堅守這個承諾 在史丹福大學,我主修生態學和演化論 1968年我創辦雜誌《Whole Earth Catalog》。有人叫我了一陣子"自然先生"
And then worked for the Jerry Brown administration. The Brown administration, and a bunch of my friends, basically leveled the energy efficiency of California, so it's the same now, 30 years later, even though our economy has gone up 80 percent, per capita. And we are putting out less greenhouse gasses than any other state. California is basically the equivalent of Europe, in this.
接着我替Jerry Brown政府做事 Jerry Brown的團隊和我一群朋友 成功地提升整個加州的能源效率 同現在三十年後的水準一樣, 儘管我們的經濟在人均發展上已成長了百分之八十 我們的溫室氣體排放比任何其他州都還要低 加州在現在的排放水平基本上與歐洲相等
This year, Whole Earth Catalog has a supplement that I'll preview today, called Whole Earth Discipline. The dominant demographic event of our time is this screamingly rapid urbanization that we have going on. By mid-century we'll be about 80 percent urban, and that's mostly in the developing world, where that's happening. It's interesting, because history is driven to a large degree by the size of cities. The developing world now has all of the biggest cities, and they are developing three times faster than the developed countries, and nine times bigger. It's qualitatively different. They are the drivers of history, as we see by looking at history.
我預告一下今年《Whole Earth Catalog》要出的特刊 標題叫"全球紀律" 我們這時代最重要的人口事件 就是持續驚人的 都市化速度 到本世紀中葉我們將有百分之八十的人口聚居在城市 而且大多數都會發生在 開發中國家。 這很有趣。因為歷史在很大程度上都是由 城市的規模所推動的。 現在,發展中國家擁有所有這些最大的城市 它們正以已開發國家三倍的速度成長中 而且相當於九倍大的規模 這在質的方面是不同的 它們是歷史的推動者,正如我們所看到的人類歷史
1,000 years ago this is what the world looked like. Well we now have a distribution of urban power similar to what we had 1,000 years ago. In other words, the rise of the West, dramatic as it was, is over. The aggregate numbers are absolutely overwhelming: 1.3 million people a week coming to town, decade after decade. What's really going on? Well, what's going on is the villages of the world are emptying out. Subsistence farming is drying up basically.
1000多年前,世界看起來是這個樣子的 現在我們有城市供電網 我們1000多年前是差不多的 換句話說,西方的興起, 過去戲劇性的一切,已經結束了 壓倒性的總人口數是絕對無法抵擋的 每週130萬人來到城裡 年復一年 這是怎麼一回事? 實際上,全世界的村落都已經空無一人 自給自足的農業基本上全枯竭了
People are following opportunity into town. And this is why. I used to have a very romantic idea about villages, and it's because I never lived in one. (Laughter) Because in town -- this is the bustling squatter city of Kibera, near Nairobi -- they see action. They see opportunity. They see a cash economy that they were not able to participate in back in the subsistence farm.
人們進城找機會 這就是原因。 我以前對農村一直懷有非常浪漫的想像, 因為我從來沒住過那。 (笑聲) 由於在城裡-- 這是位於基貝拉的一個熱鬧的貧民區大城 靠近肯亞的首都奈洛比-- 他們看到許許多多的機會 他們看到在過去的農場生活中 無法參與的金錢活動。
As you go around these places there's plenty of aesthetics. There is plenty going on. They are poor, but they are intensely urban. And they are intensely creative. The aggregate numbers now are that basically squatters, all one billion of them, are building the urban world, which means they're building the world -- personally, one by one, family by family, clan by clan, neighborhood by neighborhood. They start flimsy and they get substantial as time goes by. They even build their own infrastructure. Well, steal their own infrastructure, at first. Cable TV, water, the whole gamut, all gets stolen. And then gradually gentrifies.
當你走過這些地方時,你會發現許多美麗的事 一堆事情正在發生 他們貧窮,但他們高度地城市化。他們有豐富的創造性。 現在的總人數 基本上都住在棚戶區, 這些所有十億人,正在建立一個都市化的世界 這意謂著他們正在建造這個世界。 一人接一人,一家接一家 一族接一族,鄰里接社區 一開始,他們的生活不穩妥,但隨著時間的推移,他們愈來愈堅實 他們甚至建立屬於自己的基礎設施 嗯,或者說,先偷來自己的基礎設施 有線電視、水,全偷走 然後他們逐漸改善
It is not the case that slums undermine prosperity, not the working slums; they help create prosperity. So in a town like Mumbai, which is half slums, it's 1/6th of the GDP of India. Social capital in the slums is at its most urban and dense. These people are valuable as a group. And that's how they work.
有人說貧民窟破壞發展,但情況並非如此 事實上,貧民窟幫助創造繁榮 所以像孟買這樣一個城市,幾乎一半都是貧民窟, 它卻佔印度 1/6 的國內生產總值 貧民窟裡的社會資本,以其最高度都市化與密集的方式發展 他們是寶貴的一群人 而這是他們工作的方式
There is a lot of people who think about all these poor people, "Oh there's terrible things. We've got to fix their housing." It used to be, "Oh we've got to get them phone service." Now they're showing us how they do their phone service. Famine mostly is a rural event now. There are things they care about. And this is where we can help. And the nations they're in can help. And they are helping each other solve these issues.
許多人想到這些窮人,第一個念頭就是 「噢這真是可怕的事,我們必須解決他們的住房問題」 還有:「噢,我們得趕緊讓他們取得電話服務」 現在,他們向我們表明了如何取得自己的電話服務了 今天飢荒多半僅發生在農村 事實上,他們憂慮一些事物 而這些事是我們可以幫助的地方 國家可以對他們提供幫助 他們也互相幫助,解決這些問題
And you go to a nice dense place like this slum in Mumbai. You look at that lane on the right. And you can ask, "Okay what's going on there?" The answer is, "Everything." This is better than a mall. It's much denser. It's much more interactive. And the scale is terrific. The main event is, these are not people crushed by poverty. These are people busy getting out of poverty just as fast as they can. They're helping each other do it. They're doing it through an outlaw thing, the informal economy. The informal economy, it's sort of like dark energy in astrophysics: it's not supposed to be there, but it's huge. We don't understand how it works yet, but we have to.
如果你到一個稍微密集的地方,像這個在孟買的貧民窟 你看圖中右側的這條道路 你會想問:「這到底是怎麼一回事?」 答案是:「所有一切」 這比商場還棒。它的密度大多了 人與人更為互動 而且規模驚人 主要活動是,這些都不是被貧困壓垮的人 而是一群忙著擺脫貧困的人 他們盡其所能地迅速 他們互相幫助 他們透過違法的方式完成 非正規經濟 這非正式的經濟就像天體物理學中的暗能量 不應該在那,但它是巨大的 我們不明白它是如何運作的,但我們必須明白
Furthermore, people in the informal economy, the gray economy -- as time goes by, crime is happening around them. And they can join the criminal world, or they can join the legitimate world. We should be able to make that choice easier for them to get toward the legitimate world, because if we don't, they will go toward the criminal world. There's all kinds of activity.
此外,在非正規經濟中 灰色經濟 隨著時間的推移 犯罪愈來愈頻仍,他們也可以加入犯罪的世界 或者他們可以參與合法的世界 我們應該能夠作出這樣的選擇 使他們較容易走向合法的世界 因為如果我們不這樣做,他們會走向犯罪的世界 那裡有各樣的活動
In Dharavi the slum performs not only a lot of services for itself, but it performs services for the city at large. And one of the main events are these ad-hoc schools. Parents pool their money to hire some local teachers to a private, tiny, unofficial school. Education is more possible in the cities, and that changes the world. So you see some interesting, typical, urban things.
在Dharavi 貧民窟不僅 提供許多服務 它也為城市提供一般服務 而其中一個主要事件是這些特殊學校 家長花錢聘請一些地方教師 給一個私人,小的,非官方的學校 在城市中教育是更有機會。並且改變了世界 所以你看到一些有趣的,典型的,城市的東西
So one thing slammed up against another, such as in Sao Paulo here. That's what cities do. That's how they create value, is by slamming things together. In this case, supply right next to demand. So the maids and the gardeners and the guards that live in this lively part of town on the left walk to work, in the boring, rich neighborhood.
因此,有一些事衝撞了另一件事 就像在聖保羅這裡 這就是城市所做的事。這就是他們把所有事物擠壓在一起 創造的價值的方式 在這的例子中,供給接續著需求 因此女傭、園丁和警衛 生活在這熱鬧城市的左邊部分 走路去富裕卻沉悶的鄰近社區上班
Proximity is amazing. We are learning about how dense proximity can be. Connectivity between the city and the country is what's going to keep the country good, because the city has interesting ways of doing things. This is what makes cities -- (Applause) this is what makes cities so green in the developing world.
它們距離這麼接近是很驚人的 我們正在學習如此緊密相鄰是如何可能的 連接城市和國家 使國家保持良好 由於城市以有趣的方式做事情 這是構成城市的要素-- (掌聲) 這是使發展中國家的城市變得如此绿化的因素
Because people leave the poverty trap, an ecological disaster of subsistence farms, and head to town. And when they're gone the natural environment starts to come back very rapidly. And those who remain in the village can shift over to cash crops to send food to the new growing markets in town. So if you want to save a village, you do it with a good road, or with a good cell phone connection, and ideally some grid electrical power.
由於人們脫離貧窮陷阱, 生態的變化 衝擊自耕農 轉進城市發展 當農耕離開 自然環境 會開始很快的恢復 而留在村莊的就可選種較有經濟價值的作物 賣食物到新城市內的壯大市場 要救一個村莊 就是建條好的聯絡道路 或是好的無線電話網路 更好的是一些電力供應網路
So the event is: we're a city planet. That just happened. More than half. The numbers are considerable. A billion live in the squatter cities now. Another billion is expected. That's more than a sixth of humanity living a certain way. And that will determine a lot of how we function.
看到的是 我們就是城市的行星 超過一半 這數字是可觀的 10億人正生活在擁擠的城市 另外 10 億人也預計會 那是超過1/6的人類 生活著同一種方式 那就會決定我們如何運作
Now, for us environmentalists, maybe the greenest thing about the cities is they diffuse the population bomb. People get into town. The immediately have fewer children. They don't even have to get rich yet. Just the opportunity of coming up in the world means they will have fewer, higher-quality kids, and the birthrate goes down radically.
對我們這些環境保護工作者 或許城市最綠色的發展 是能緩和人口之增加 人們來到城裡 立即會減少生育 他們不需要先變得富有 機會自然發生 他們可以有較少又較佳的孩子 生育率迅速下降
Very interesting side effect here, here's a slide from Phillip Longman. Shows what is happening. As we have more and more old people, like me, and fewer and fewer babies. And they are regionally separated. What you're getting is a world which is old folks, and old cities, going around doing things the old way, in the north. And young people in brand new cities they're inventing, doing new things, in the south. Where do you think the action is going to be?
非常有趣的副作用發生 這張照片是來自 Phillip Longman 顯示發生什麼事 我們有愈來愈多的老人佔比 與愈來愈少的嬰兒 他們還是有區域性的分割 得到的是 老人 老城市 從事著舊有活動 近北邊 年輕的 都擠進他們創造的年輕城市 在南邊 從事新活動 你們知道是哪些新活動呢?
Shift of subject. Quickly drop by climate. The climate news, I'm sorry to say, is going to keep getting worse than we think, faster than we think. Climate is a profoundly complex, nonlinear system, full of runaway positive feedbacks, hidden thresholds and irrevocable tipping points. Here's just a few samples. We're going to keep being surprised. And almost all the surprises are going to be bad ones.
暫偏主題 看一下氣候問題 關於氣候 我很抱歉的說 只會比我們以為的 更加惡化的 更加劇烈急速 氣候是非常複雜的 非線性變化的 到處都是亂竄的正向反饋 隱藏的門檻 與 不可逆的反轉點 這裡就只是幾個例子 我們會持續感到意外的 最出乎意料的都是些壞事
From your standpoint this means a great increase in climate refugees over the coming decades, and what goes along with that, which is resource wars and chaos wars, as we're seeing in Darfur. That's what drought does. It brings carrying capacity down, and there's not enough carrying capacity to support the people. And then you're in trouble.
從你的觀點 會有更多的氣候變遷難民 就在未來的數十年 伴隨著 就是搶資源的戰爭 與 混沌不明的戰爭 就像發生在 Darfur 只因為乾旱造成 拖垮公權力 沒有足夠的公權力 來幫助人民 只有混亂了
Shift to the power situation. Baseload electricity is what it takes to run a city, or a city planet. So far there is only three sources of baseload electricity: coal, some gas, nuclear and hydro. Of those, only nuclear and hydro are green. Coal is what is causing the climate problems. And everyone will keep burning it because it's so cheap, until governments make it expensive. Wind and solar can't help, because so far we don't have a way to store that energy.
來說說電力的問題 基載電力就是用來讓城市運作的 或說我們整個星球 目前僅有三種來源是基載電力 煤 與一些天然氣 構成的 火力發電 核能發電 水力發電 之中 僅有核能與水力是綠色的 燃煤就是造成氣候的問題 每個人將還是繼續燒煤 因為它是如此便宜 直到政府能讓它變貴 風力與太陽能難有助益 因我們還沒有個好方式儲存能量
So with hydro maxed out, coal and lose the climate, or nuclear, which is the current operating low-carbon source, and maybe save the climate. And if we can eventually get good solar in space, that also could help. Because remember, this is what drives the prosperity in the developing world in the villages and in the cities.
由於水力已到開發上限 燃煤會惡化氣候 核能產出極低的碳排放 就或許能挽救氣候異常 若我們真的能有太空中的太陽光電發電 那就真是大幫手了 因為 這些才是能為開發中國家創造繁榮的 不管是鄉村或城市
So, between coal and nuclear, compare their waste products. If all of the electricity you used in your lifetime was nuclear, the amount of waste that would be added up would fit in a Coke can. Whereas a coal-burning plant, a normal one gigawatt coal plant, burns 80 rail cars of coal a day, each car having 100 tons. And it puts 18 thousand tons of carbon dioxide in the air. So and then when you compare the lifetime emissions of these various energy forms, nuclear is about even with solar and wind, and ahead of solar -- oh, I'm sorry -- with hydro and wind, and ahead of solar.
所以比較燃煤與核能 看他們的廢棄產生 這輩子一個人能用掉的電力 若是來自核能 那核能廢棄物加總起來 只有可樂罐子的大小 若是來自燃煤 一個10億瓦等級的電廠 是要每天燒去80節火車廂的煤 每節車有100公噸的煤 這個廠每天排放1萬8千噸的 二氧化碳到大氣層 所以比較這一輩子用電 各種形式的排放量 核能約與太陽光電與風力相當 勝過太陽光電 喔! 抱歉是約與水力與風力相當 勝過太陽光電
And does nuclear really compete with coal? Just ask the coal miners in Australia. That's where you see some of the source, not from my fellow environmentalists, but from people who feel threatened by nuclear power. Well the good news is that the developing world, but frankly, the whole world, is busy building, and starting to build, nuclear reactors. This is good for the atmosphere. It's good for their prosperity.
是不是核能真的能贏過燃煤 問問那些澳大利亞的煤礦曠工 會得到些消息來源 不是從我的環保團體 而是來自因核能而備受威脅的人 好消息是這個 開發中國家 坦白說是 所有國家 都急忙於建構核能發電廠 對大氣層是好的 對他們的繁榮是好的
I want to point out one interesting thing, which is that environmentalists like the thing we call micropower. It's supposed to be, I don't know, local solar and wind and cogeneration, and good things like that. But frankly micro-reactors which are just now coming on, might serve even better.
我需要指出一件有趣的事 環保團體喜歡所謂的 微電力系統 就是 座落於當地的 太陽 風力 或 汽電共生 等等的 發電系統 實際上 微型反應爐 就快問世 能提供更佳的方案
The Russians, who started this, are building floating reactors, for their new passage, where the ice is melting, north of Russia. And they're selling these floating reactors, only 35 megawatts, to developing countries. Here's the design of an early one from Toshiba. It's interesting, say, to take a 25-megawatt, 25 million watts, and you compare it to the standard big iron of an ordinary Westinghouse or Ariva, which is 1.2, 1.6 billion watts. These things are way smaller. They're much more adaptable. Here's an American design from Lawrence Livermore Lab. Here's another American design that came out of Los Alamos, and is now commercial.
俄國人士最早發展這個的 正再建造一漂移的反應爐 在俄國北邊的水路通道 持續耗電溶解冰 他們也出售 這種浮動反應爐 約3千5百萬瓦 給開發中國家 這是Toshiba早期的設計 這是非常有意思的 用 2千5 百萬瓦發電量 與標準的Westinghouse 或是 Ariva的 大反應爐相比 動輒12 或 16億瓦 這些是更小的設計 更能應付各式情況 這是一個美國設計給Lawrence實驗室 這裡是另一從Los Alamos設計 也已商轉的例子
Almost all of these are not only small, they are proliferation-proof. They're typically buried in the ground. And the innovation is moving very rapidly. So I think microreactors is going to be important for the future. In terms of proliferation, nuclear energy has done more to dismantle nuclear weapons than any other activity. And that's why 10 percent of the electricity in this room, 20 percent of electricity in this room is probably nuclear. Half of that is coming from dismantled warheads from Russia, soon to be joined by our dismantled warheads. And so I would like to see the GNEP program, that was developed in the Bush administration, go forward aggressively. And I was glad to see that president Obama supported the nuclear fuel bank strategy when he spoke in Prague the other week.
幾乎這些設計不只是小 它們也確保不致於變成核武擴散 它們通常是埋在地下 創新的速度是加速進行 我相信微型反應爐將是未來重要的發展 至於核武威脅的議題 核能實際已經是 拆解核子武器後的再利用 所以 大約10%~20% 這間室內使用的電力 是來自核能 其中一半是來自於蘇聯核彈頭的拆解 也將在加入我們自己的核彈頭 所以 我希望在以前布希政府下 的GNEP計畫 能更積極向前 我也高興見到 Obama 總統 在幾週前布拉格的演講 能支持核能燃料庫的策略
One more subject. Genetically engineered food crops, in my view, as a biologist, have no reason to be controversial. My fellow environmentalists, on this subject, have been irrational, anti-scientific, and very harmful. Despite their best efforts, genetically engineered crops are the most rapidly successful agricultural innovation in history. They're good for the environment because they enable no-till farming, which leaves the soil in place, getting healthier from year to year -- slso keeps less carbon dioxide going from the soil into the atmosphere. They reduce pesticide use. And they increase yield, which allows you to have your agricultural area be smaller, and therefore more wild area is freed up.
再一個主題: 基因工程改造的糧食作物 以我一個生物學家的觀點 這是沒什麼好爭辯的 但有些環保同僚 卻對此 有些非理性 反科學 或是 傷害的角度看待 先不管科學家的努力 農作物基因工程可是 農業歷史上最具成功代表性 對環境也是有益的 因為 它們促成了免耕農業 讓土壤留在原地 每年也是更加的健康 也同時減少了土壤的CO2 排放到大氣中 也能減少殺蟲劑的使用 也增加作物產量 也就能讓我們的 耕作面積減少 也就多出了野生地區
By the way, this map from 2006 is out of date because it shows Africa still under the thumb of Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth from Europe, and they're finally getting out from under that. And biotech is moving rapidly in Africa, at last.
這張2006年的地圖 是過時的 因為它顯示非洲 還是需要綠和平 與歐洲地球之友的 廣泛協助 其實他們多已撤出 生物科技在非洲終於快速展開
This is a moral issue. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics met on this issue twice in great detail and said it is a moral imperative to make genetically engineered crops readily available. Speaking of imperatives, geoengineering is taboo now, especially in government circles, though I think there was a DARPA meeting on it a couple of weeks ago, but it will be on your plate -- not this year but pretty soon, because some harsh realizations are coming along. This is a list of them.
這實際是個道德問題 Nuffield 生物倫理理事會 就已為此議題做過兩次深入討論 並決議 這是個道德必行的事 應盡速研發出基因工程作物 說到勢在必行 地球工程目前卻是個禁忌話題 尤其是在政治圈內 即使幾週前 曾有個 DARPA 會議討論這個主題 遲早會到大家眼前 不是今年 但也會是相當快的 因為一些嚴苛情況 很快就會來臨 這是張清單
Basically the news is going to keep getting more scary. There will be events, like 35,000 people dying of a heat wave, which happened a while back. Like cyclones coming up toward Bangladesh. Like wars over water, such as in the Indus. And as those events keep happening we're going to say, "Okay, what can we do about that really?"
基本上 消息會更嚇人的 會是一些事件 像是 35,000人 因熱浪來襲而死 在之前不久發生過 像是 龍捲風襲擊 孟加拉 像是 水資源的戰爭 發生在印度河 當這些事件持續發生 我們會說: "好吧! 我們真的能做些什麼呢?"
But there's this little problem with geoengineering: what body is going to decide who gets to engineer? How much they do? Where they do it? Because everybody is downstream, downwind of whatever is done. And if we just taboo it completely we could lose civilization. But if we just say "OK, China, you're worried, you go ahead. You geoengineer your way. We'll geoengineer our way." That would be considered an act of war by both nations. So this is very interesting diplomacy coming along. I should say, it is more practical than people think.
但是 地球工程上還有個問題 哪個組織來決定? 地球需要什麼工程? 做多少? 在哪裡做? 因為每個人都會是被影響者 因為每個人都會是被影響與波及 若是我們完全不談它 我們或許會失去文明 或若只是一味贊同 中國要做 好去做 你做你的方式 我做我的 那將會是 近似兩國宣戰 所以也會見到新的外交談判 我想說的是 這些比一般人以為的還要可實現
Here is an example that climatologists like a lot, one of the dozens of geoengineering ideas. This one came from the sulfur dioxide from Mount Pinatubo in 1991 -- cooled the earth by half a degree. There was so much ice in 1992, the following year, that there was a bumper crop of polar bear cubs who were known as the Pinatubo cubs. To put sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere would cost on the order of a billion dollars a year. That's nothing, compared to all of the other things we may be trying to do about energy.
這就是個氣候學家喜歡的 十幾個例子其中之一 這個例子 是SO2 1991年 Pinatubo 火山 降低了地球半度 造成接著的1992年大積雪 也孕育出了大量的北極熊寶寶 也就被稱為 Pinatubo寶寶 要將 SO2 放在平流層 約需要每年10億美元經費 這筆錢是小的 相較其他 規劃中的能源類相關計畫
Just to run by another one: this is a plan to brighten the reflectance of ocean clouds, by atomizing seawater; that would brighten the albedo of the whole planet. A nice one, because it can happen lots of little ways in lots of little places, is by copying the ancient Amazon Indians who made good agricultural soil by pyrolizing, smoldering, plant waste, and biochar fixes large quantities of carbon while it's improving the soil.
再舉個例子 這是個將海洋上的雲增加反射陽光 利用的是將海水分子化 那會增加全球的陽光遮蔽效果 另一個相當好的例子 因為這是可行的 且可以多地點與多方式進行 是向古代亞馬遜的原住民學習 製造出很好的農作土壤 是利用肥料 植物廢料 可以固化大量的碳元素 也可以做土壤改質
So here is where we are. Nobel Prize-winning climatologist Paul Crutzen calls our geological era the Anthropocene, the human-dominated era. We are stuck with its obligations. In the Whole Earth Catalog, my first words were, "We are as Gods, and might as well get good at it." The first words of Whole Earth Discipline are, "We are as Gods, and have to get good at it." Thank you. (Applause)
這就是我們所處的狀況 諾貝爾得主 氣候學家 Paul Crutzen 稱人類所在的世紀 是由人類所主宰 但我們卻也背負了 義務 在之前 Whole Earth Catalog (全球型錄) 我的前幾句是 "我們喜歡扮神, 那不妨學會作好" Wole Earth Discipline (全球紀律) 的前幾句是 "我們若是神 那就得做好祂" 謝謝 (掌聲)