How to decarbonize the grid and electrify everything | John Doerr and Hal Harvey

Transcriber: TED Translators Admin Reviewer: Rhonda Jacobs

翻译人员: TED Translators Admin 校对人员: Yolanda Zhang

John Doerr: Hello, Hal!

约翰·杜尔（John Doerr）： 哈尔，你好！

Hal Harvey: John, nice to see you.

哈尔·哈维（Hal Harvey）： 约翰，很高兴见到你！

JD: Nice to see you too.

约翰·杜尔：我也一样。

HH: So John, we've got a big challenge.

哈尔·哈维：约翰， 我们现在有个大麻烦。

We need to get carbon out of the atmosphere.

我们必须减少 大气中的二氧化碳，

We need to stop emitting carbon,

必须停止向大气中 排放二氧化碳，

并在 2050 年实现零排放。

drive it to zero by 2050.

And we need to be halfway there by 2030.

我们需要在 2030 年 减少一半的排放量。

Where are we now?

我们现在处在什么阶段呢？

JD: As you know, we're dumping 55 billion tons

约翰·杜尔：要知道， 我们现在每年会向大气中

of carbon pollution in our precious atmosphere every year,

排放 550 亿吨的二氧化碳，

as if it's some kind of free and open sewer.

就好像大气是个公共排水沟一样。

To get halfway to zero by 2030,

如果要在 2030 年 减少一半的排放量，

we're going to have to reduce annual emissions

我们必须每年

by about 10 percent a year.

减少 10% 的排放。

And we've never reduced annual emissions in any year

而人类历史上每年的碳排放量

in the history of the planet.

一直是有增无减。

So let's break this down.

我们来具体分析一下。

Seventy-five percent of the emissions

75% 的二氧化碳排放都来自

come from the 20 largest emitting countries.

世界上排放量最大的 20 个国家，

And from four sectors of their economy.

尤其在四个主要的经济领域。

The first is grid.

首先是能源网，

Second, transportation.

第二个是交通，

The third from the buildings.

第三是建筑，

And the fourth from industrial activities.

第四是工业活动。

We've got to fix all those, at speed and at scale.

我们必须快速并大规模处理 所有这些领域所排放的二氧化碳。

HH: We do.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

And matters are in some ways worse than we think and some ways better.

某些方面的情况比我们想象的要糟， 而有些方面则要好一些，

Let me start with the worse.

我先从更糟糕的情况开始说。

Climate change is a wicked problem.

气候变化是一个非常棘手的问题。

And what do I mean by wicked problem?

这么说是什么意思呢？

It means it's a problem that transcends geographic boundaries.

它是一个超越地理界限的问题。

The sources are everywhere, and the impacts are everywhere.

碳排放无处不在， 其影响也无处不在。

Although obviously some nations have contributed much more than others.

显然，有些国家的排放量 远超其他国家。

实际上，有关气候变化 最可怕的事情之一就是，

In fact, one of the terrible things about climate change

is those who contributed least to it will be hurt the most.

那些对气候变化影响最小的人 受到的伤害反而最大。

It's a great inequity machine.

这是一个巨大的不平等机器。

So here we have a problem that you cannot solve

因此，我们面临的这个问题

within the national boundaries of one country,

无法在一个国家的国界内解决，

and yet international institutions are notoriously weak.

而很显然，国际机构的作用 也相当有限。

So that's part of the wicked problem.

这就是该问题的其中一个方面。

The second element of the wicked problem is it transcends normal timescales.

第二个方面是， 它超越了正常的时间尺度。

We're used to news day by day,

我们已经习惯于按日发布的新闻，

or quarterly reports for business enterprises,

按季度发布的企业报告，

or an election cycle -- that's about the longest we think anymore of.

或者大选，这是我们 所能想到的最长的周期了。

而气候变化是永久性的。

Climate change essentially lasts forever.

当我们将二氧化碳排放到大气中时，

When you put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,

it's there, or its impacts are there, for 1,000 years.

其影响会持续 1000 年之久，

It's a gift we keep on giving for our children, our grandchildren

不断影响着我们的子孙后代

and dozens and dozens of generations beyond there.

以及未来的数十代人。

JD: It sounds like a tax we keep on paying.

约翰·杜尔：听起来就像是 我们要永久性缴纳的税款。

HH: Yeah, it is. It is.

哈尔·哈维： 是的，没错。

You sin once, you pay forever.

你犯了一次错， 就要付出永远的代价。

And then the third element of it being a wicked problem

第三个方面，

is that carbon dioxide is embedded in every aspect of our industrial economy.

就是二氧化碳已渗入 我们工业经济的各个方面。

Every car, and every truck, and every airplane, and every house,

每辆汽车、每辆卡车、 每架飞机、每幢房屋，

and every electrical socket, and every industrial processes

每个电源插座 以及每个工业过程

now emits carbon dioxide.

都在排放二氧化碳。

JD: So what's the recipe?

约翰·杜尔： 那么解决方案是什么呢？

HH: Well, here's the shortcut.

哈尔·哈维： 的确有一条捷径，

If you decarbonize the grid, the electrical grid,

如果能够让电网脱碳，

and then run everything on electricity --

然后为所有设备供电——

decarbonize the grid and electrify everything --

使电网脱碳并实现全面电气化——

如果能够做到这两点， 就能实现零碳经济。

if you do those two things, you have a zero carbon economy.

Now, that would seem like a pipe dream just a few years ago

就在几年前， 这一切都还是只是幻想，

because it was expensive to create a zero-carbon grid.

因为打造零碳电网的成本很高。

But the prices of solar and wind have plummeted.

但是太阳能和风能的价格 已经出现了大幅下降。

Solar's now the cheapest form of electricity on planet earth

太阳能现在是地球上 最廉价的电力来源，

and wind is second.

风能位居二位。

It means now that you can convert the grid to zero-carbon rapidly

这就意味着，现在你可以 迅速将电网转变为零碳排放，

and save consumers money along the way.

同时为消费者节省开支。

So there's leverage.

所以这里有一个杠杆作用。

JD: Well, I think a key question, Hal, is do we have the technology that we need

约翰·杜尔：哈尔，我觉得 关键的问题是，我们是否

to replace fossil fuels to get this job done?

有合适的技术来取代化石燃料， 以实行这个计划？

And my answer is no.

我的答案是，没有。

I think we're about 70, maybe 80 percent of the way there.

我们大概实现了七成， 或者八成的目标。

For example, we urgently need a breakthrough in batteries.

举个例子，我们现在急需 突破性的电池技术。

Our batteries need to be higher energy density.

这些电池需要有更高的能量密度，

They need to have enhanced safety, faster charging.

必须更安全、充电速度更快，

They need to take less space and less weight,

还要更小、更轻，

and above all else, they need to cost a lot less.

最重要的是，价格要更低。

In fact, we need new chemistries that don't rely on scarce cobalt.

准确来说，我们需要探索新的化学元素， 而不是一味地依赖稀有的钴。

And we're going to need lots of these batteries.

而且我们需要很多这种新型电池。

We desperately need much more research in clean energy technology.

在绿色能源科技方面， 我们迫切的需要进行更多研究。

The US invests about 2.5 billion dollars a year.

美国每年都会 在这类领域投资 25 亿美金。

Do you know how much Americans spend on potato chips?

你知道每年美国人在薯片上 会花掉多少钱吗？

哈尔·哈维： 不知道。

HH: No.

约翰·杜尔： 答案是 40 亿。

JD: The answer is 4 billion dollars.

Now, what do you think of that?

你怎么想？

HH: Upside down.

哈尔·哈维： 这两个数字应该反过来。

But let me press a little further

不过我想再深入探讨一下

on a question that's fascinated me about the Silicon Valley.

一个让我比较着迷的 关于硅谷的问题。

So the Silicon Valley is governed by Moore's law,

硅谷一直受到摩尔定律的约束，

where performance doubles every 18 months.

芯片的效能每 18 个月 就会增加一倍。

It's not really a law, it's an observation,

这并不是真正的定律， 而是一种观察，

但是可以这样理解。

but be that as it may.

The energy world is governed by much more mundane laws,

能源世界则受到更普遍的定律，

the laws of thermodynamics, right?

即热力学定律的支配，对吧？

It's physical stuff in the economy.

也就是经济体系中的事物——

Cement, trucks, factories, power plants.

水泥、卡车、工厂、发电厂。

JD: Atoms, not bits.

约翰·杜尔： 原子，而不是比特。

HH: Atoms, not bits. Perfect.

哈尔·哈维： 原子，不是比特。没错。

And the transformation of big physical things is slower,

大型实物的转换速度较慢，

and the margins are worse, and often the commodities are generic.

利润率也比较低， 而且商品通常是通用的。

How do we stimulate the kind of innovation in those worlds

为了拯救地球，我们如何激发

that we actually need in order to save this planet earth?

这些领域中真正需要的创新？

JD: Well, that's a really great question.

约翰·杜尔： 这是一个非常好的问题。

The innovation starts with basic science in research and development.

创新始于研发领域的基础科学。

And the American commitment to that, while advanced on a global sense,

尽管在全球范围处于领先地位， 但美国对此的承诺

is still paltry.

仍然微不足道。

It needs to be 10 times higher

实际投入需要比

than the, say, 2.5 billion per year that we spend on clean energy R and D.

我们每年在清洁能源研发上 花费的 25 亿美元高 10 倍。

But we need to go beyond R and D as well.

但是我们也需要着眼于 研发之后的阶段。

There needs to be a kind of development, a kind of pre-commercialization,

需要有一种阶段的发展， 一种前商品化的发展，

which in the US is done by a group called ARPA-E.

这在美国是由一个叫做 ARPA-E 的组织完成的。

Then there's the matter of forming new companies.

然后就是组建新公司的问题。

HH: Yes.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

约翰·杜尔：我认为企业的能源需求 正在转移回这个领域。

JD: And I think entrepreneurial energy is shifting back into that field.

It's clear that it takes longer and more capital,

显然，这需要更长的时间 和更多的资金，

but you can build a really substantial and valuable enterprise or company.

但是你可以建立一个真正重要 而有价值的企业或公司。

HH: Yes.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

JD: Tesla's a prime example. Beyond Meat is another one.

约翰·杜尔：特斯拉就是一个很好的例子， 还有 Beyond Meat（人造肉生产商）。

And that's inspiring entrepreneurs globally.

这鼓舞了全球的企业家。

But that's not enough.

但这还不够。

I think you need also a demand signal, in the form of policies and purchases,

我认为，还需要像德国那样 利用太阳能的国家，

from nations, like Germany did with solar, to go make these markets happen.

以政策和采购的形式 发出需求信号，以创建这些的市场。

And so I'm, at heart, a capitalist.

从本质上讲，我是一个资本家。

I think this energy crisis is the mother of all markets.

我认为这场能源危机 位于所有市场的核心。

And it will take longer.

这将需要更长的时间。

But the market for electric vehicle batteries -- 500 billion dollars a year.

但是电动汽车电池市场的规模 已经达到了每年 5000 亿美元。

It's probably another 500 billion dollars if you go to stationary batteries.

如果使用固定电池， 可能还需要 5000 亿美元。

I want to tell you another story that involves policy,

我想谈谈 另外一个关于政策，

but importantly, plans.

确切来说是关于计划的例子。

Now, Shenzhen is a city of 15 million people,

中国的深圳是一个有着 1500 万人口的城市，

an innovative city, in China.

是中国的一个创新型城市。

And they decided that they were going to move to electric buses.

他们已经决定 全面部署电动公交车。

And so they required all buses be electric.

所以他们要求把所有的公交车 都该换成电力驱动，

In fact, they required parking spots have chargers associated with them.

甚至还要求所有停车位 都要配备充电站。

So today, Shenzhen has 18,000 electric buses.

现在深圳共 有 18000 辆电动公交车

It has 21,000 electric taxis.

和 21000 辆电动出租车。

And this goodness didn't just happen.

这不是一朝一夕就能实现的，

It was the result of a thoughtful, written, five-year plan

而是需要一个耗时五年的， 脚踏实地的详细计划，

that isn't just a kind of campaign promise.

绝非空口承诺。

Executing against these plans is how mayors get promoted, or fired.

如何实施好这个计划 是跟市长的仕途绑定的。

And so it's really deadly serious.

所以他们非常重视这一承诺。

It has to do with carbon, and it has to do with health, with jobs,

这关系到碳排放， 关系到公众健康、就业

and with overall economic strength.

和整体的经济实力。

The bottom line is that China today has 420,000 electric buses.

要知道，全中国目前 总共有 42 万辆电动公交车，

America has less than 1,000.

而美国只有不到 1000 辆。

So what other national projects are there that you'd like to see?

那么，还有哪些 你期待看到的国家级项目？

HH: So this is a global effort,

哈尔·哈维： 这是一项全球性的努力，

but not everybody's going to do the same thing,

但并不是每个人都会 采取相同的行动，

or should do the same thing.

或者应该采取相同的行动。

Let me start with Norway.

我想从挪威开始。

A country that happens to be brilliant at offshore oil,

这是一个在海上石油领域 表现出色的国家，

but also understands the consequences of burning more oil.

但也了解燃烧更多石油的后果。

They realized they could deploy their skills

他们意识到可以

from their offshore oil development into offshore wind.

将自己的技能从海上石油开发 转移到海上风电开发。

It's a big deal to put wind turbines out in the ocean.

将风力涡轮机部署到海洋中 是一件非同小可的事情。

The ocean, the winds are much stronger,

那里的海风要强劲得多，

and the winds are much more constant, not only stronger.

而且能量更稳定。

So it balances the grid beautifully.

因此，它可以很好地平衡电网。

But it's really hard to build things in the deep ocean.

但是在深海中 搭建这些设施难度很高，

Norway's good at it.

但挪威很擅长做这些事，

So let them take that on.

所以不如就让他们放手一试。

JD: Are they taking it on?

约翰·杜尔： 他们已经采取行动了吗？

HH: They are actually.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

Yeah. It's pretty brilliant.

这是个非常不错的主意。

Another example: India.

另一个例子：印度。

There are hundreds of millions of people in India

印度有数亿人口

that don’t have access to electricity.

生活在没有电的环境中。

With the advances in solar and advances in batteries,

随着太阳能和电池技术的发展，

他们没有理由

there's no reason they have to build the grid

为那些没有电网的村庄建造电网。

to all those villages that don't have a grid.

他们可以跳过化石燃料这一步，

Skip the steps.

Skip the dirty steps. Leapfrog to clean.

直接投资清洁能源。

But this all comes together, in my opinion, in the realm of policy.

但是，在我看来，这一切 在政策领域都是彼此交织的。

We need dramatic accelerants, is what you're saying.

你的意思是， 我们需要大幅加速

Accelerants in R and D, but also accelerants in deployment.

相关技术的研发和部署。

部署是一种创新， 因为部署会降低价格。

Deployment is innovation because deployment drives prices down.

The right policy can turn things around,

正确的政策能改变局势。

and we've seen it happen already in the electricity sector.

我们在能源领域已经 见证过类似的改变。

So electricity regulators have asked for ever cleaner sources of electricity:

能源监管机构一直以来 都在提出同样的要求：

more renewables, less coal, less natural gas.

更清洁的能源，多用可再生能源， 少用煤炭和天然气。

And it's working.

这确实起到了一些效果，

It's working pretty brilliantly, actually.

应该说效果还相当不错。

But it's not enough.

但这还远远不够。

So the German government recognized the possibility

德国政府已经认识到了

of driving down the price of clean energy.

降低绿色能源价格的可能性。

And so they put in orders on the books.

于是他们制定了新的政策，

They agreed to pay an extra price for early phases of solar energy,

同意对太阳能领域的 早期研发进行更多投资，

presuming the price would drop.

并预测绿色能源的价格 会持续降低。

They created the demand signal using policy.

他们利用政策创造了“需求信号”。

The Chinese created a supply signal, also using policy.

中国人也利用政策 创造了供应信号。

They decided that solar was a strategic part of their future economy.

他们判断，太阳能将会是他们未来 经济发展的一个战略组成部分。

So you had this unwritten agreement between the two countries,

所以现在这两个国家形成了 一个非书面协议，

一个负责大量采购， 一个负责大量生产，

one buying a lot, the other producing a lot,

从而将价格降低了 80%。

that helped drive the price down 80 percent.

We should be doing that with 10 technologies, or a dozen,

我们应该在世界范围内 通过多种技术

around the world.

来实现这个目标。

We need policy as the magic sauce

我们需要把类似的政策

to go through those four sectors in the biggest countries,

应用到 20 个碳排放最多的国家， 甚至是所有国家的

in all countries.

这四个领域。

And one of the things that animates me

其中最鼓舞人心的 一个方面就是，

is that this requires people who are concerned about climate change,

这需要所有关注气候变化的人—— 应该是每一个人——

which should be everybody,

都能参与其中。

those folks have to apply their energies on the policies that matter

我们必须把精力集中在 那些对重要的决策者来说

with the decision-makers who matter.

很关键的政策上。

If you don't know who the decision-maker is

如果你不知道

谁在制定电网脱碳的相关政策，

to decarbonize the grid,

or to produce electric vehicles in the policy world,

或者谁正在紧跟政策 生产电动汽车，

you're really not in the game.

那你就还远远没有参与进来。

JD: Hal, you're an expert in policy.

约翰·杜尔： 哈尔，你是政策方面的专家。

I know this because I've read your book --

我知道这一点 是因为我读了你的书——

HH: Thanks, John.

哈尔·哈维： 谢谢，约翰。

JD: Designing Climate Solutions.

约翰·杜尔： 《设计气候解决方案》。

What makes for good policy?

是什么决定了一个政策的好坏？

HH: There are some secrets here,

哈尔·哈维： 这里有一些诀窍，

如果我们想解决气候变化问题， 掌握这些诀窍确实很重要。

and they're really important if we want to solve climate change.

我来举两个例子。

Let me give you two of the secrets.

First, you have to go where the tons are.

首先，必须监控所有的碳排放。

JD: Follow the tons.

约翰·杜尔：追踪碳足迹。

HH: Follow the tons.

哈尔·哈维： 没错，追踪碳足迹。

And this is such an obvious idea,

这是显而易见的，

但令人惊讶的是，很多政策 都只是在边缘徘徊，试探。

but it's amazing how many policies tinker around the edges.

I call it green paint.

我称之为“绿漆”。

We don't need green paint. We need green substance.

我们不需要“绿色涂料”， 我们需要“绿色材料”。

The second thing is when you set a policy, insist on continuous improvement.

第二点，当你制定政策时， 要坚持持续性的改进。

So what does that mean?

那是什么意思呢？

Back in 1978, Jerry Brown was the youngest governor in California's history,

1978 年，杰里·布朗（Jerry Brown） 是加利福尼亚州历史上最年轻的州长，

and he implemented a thermal building code,

他推行了一套热建筑法规，

which means when you build a building, it has to have insulation in it.

也就是说，新建筑必须带有隔热层。

Pretty simple idea.

这是一个很简单的想法。

But he put a trick into that law.

但是他在那条法律上 玩了个把戏。

He said every three years, the code gets tighter, and tighter, and tighter.

他说，每三年，这套规范 都要变得越来越严格。

And how do you know how much tighter?

但你怎么知道比之前严格了多少？

Anything that pays for itself in energy savings gets thrown into the code.

任何节能源的项目 都会被纳入这套规范之中。

So in the intervening years, we got better insulation,

因此，在随后的几年中， 我们的建筑具备了更好的隔热性，

better windows, better furnaces,

安装了更好的 隔热窗和供热系统，

better roofing.

屋顶的质量也更好。

Today, a new California building

如今，在加利福尼亚州，

uses 80 percent less energy than a pre-code building.

一栋新建筑物的能耗比在这套规范 实施前修建的建筑物低 80％。

And Jerry Brown used his legislative bandwidth once to draft that policy

所以杰里·布朗利用他的立法权

that produces fruits forever.

起草了一项能够产生 永久效果的政策。

JD: He got the words right.

约翰·杜尔： 他制定了合理的政策。

HH: He got the words right. Continuous improvement.

哈尔·哈维： 是的，持续性的改进。

There's a counterexample, which should be instructive as well.

再举一个比较有启发性的反例。

So you and I are both of an age where we remember the first oil embargo

我们都还记得

第一次石油禁运和能源危机

and the energy crisis that caused

with stagnation and inflation at the same time.

同时导致了经济停滞和通货膨胀。

Gerald Ford was president.

当时的美国总统 是杰拉尔德·福特。

And he realized that if we could double the fuel efficiency of new vehicles,

他意识到，如果我们可以 将新车的燃油效率提高一倍，

we could cut in half their energy use.

就可以减少一半的能源消耗。

So he signed a law to double the fuel efficiency

因此他签署了一项法律， 要求把在美国销售的新车的

of new vehicles sold in America,

燃油效率提高一倍，

from 13 miles per gallon, absolutely pathetic,

从每加仑 13 英里—— 这是个很低的数字——

to 26 miles per gallon.

增加到每加仑 26 英里。

JD: That's big.

约翰·杜尔：提高幅度很大。

HH: It’s pathetic by today’s standards, but it was a big deal then, right?

哈尔·哈维：按今天的标准来看不算什么， 但放在当时算是一个巨大的飞跃。

翻了一番。

It was doubling.

但是通过制定一个数字目标， 我们创造了一个 25 年的稳定期。

But by setting a number as the goal, we created a 25-year plateau.

So imagine if instead he said

可以想象一下，如果他说

fuel efficiency will increase at four percent a year forever.

燃料效率将每年以 4％ 的速度 持续增长会是什么效果。

JD: So Hal, goals are great things.

约翰·杜尔： 哈尔，目标的确很重要。

How do you find the policymakers that set these goals?

你是如何找到 制定这些目标的决策者的？

And then how do you influence them?

又是如何影响他们的呢？

HH: Well, so that's maybe the most important question of all.

哈尔·哈维： 这可能是最重要的一个问题。

If we have a lot of concern about climate change,

如果我们对气候变化 有深深的忧虑，

and not it's properly aimed, it just dissipates.

却又没有针对这个问题制定政策， 那么问题就不会得到解决。

It's a one-day headline about a march.

喊口号的效果只能是昙花一现，

And that's not going to get the job done.

起不到任何实际的效果。

In every sector, in every country, there’s a decision-maker.

在每个领域，每个国家 和地区都有决策者，

And it’s usually not the senator or the president.

并且通常不是参议员或总统，

It’s usually an air quality regulator or a public utilities commissioner.

而是空气质量管理者 或公共事业专员。

These are the people

这些人掌握着

that have the secret knobs on the energy of the economy.

经济能源的秘密控制权。

They're the ones that get to decide whether we get cleaner and cleaner energy,

他们决定了我们是否 获得越来越清洁的能源，

越来越节能的建筑，

more and more efficient buildings, more and more efficient cars,

越来越高效的汽车，等等。

and so forth.

约翰·杜尔：在美国这样的经济体中， 这样的人有多少？

JD: How many of these people are there in an economy like the US?

HH: Electric utilities are monopolies,

哈尔·哈维： 电力行业是垄断企业，

and so they're regulated by utilities commissions.

受到公用事业委员会的监管，

Otherwise they'd jack up the price too high.

防止他们擅自抬高价格。

Every state has a utilities commission, a public utilities commission.

每个州都有一个公用事业委员会，

These commissions typically have five members.

通常有五个成员。

So that’s about 250 people in America who control the future of our grid.

所以在美国，大约有250 个人 控制着我们电网的未来。

None of them's a senator. None of them's a governor.

他们都不是参议员， 也都不是州长。

他们的职位是被指定的。

They're appointed positions.

JD: How much carbon do they control?

约翰·杜尔： 他们控制着多少碳排放？

哈尔·哈维： 经济体系中 40％ 的碳排放。

HH: 40 percent of the carbon in the economy.

约翰·杜尔： 哇，只有 250 个人。

JD: Wow. 250 people.

HH: 250 individuals.

哈尔·哈维： 没错。

Now, you can narrow that down even more.

你也可以进一步缩小范围，

So let's go for the 30 biggest states. Because this is all about tons, right?

聚焦在 30 个最大的州。 因为我们在讨论排放量的，对吧？

JD: Yeah.

约翰·杜尔： 是的。

HH: You're now down to 150 individuals.

哈尔·哈维： 你现在只有 150 个人。

And if you're content to win votes on a three to two basis,

如果你满足于 以 3 比 2 的票数赢得选票，

you're down to 90 individuals who control almost half the carbon in the economy.

那么控制经济体中 90％ 碳排放的只有 90 个人。

How do you make sure those 90 people vote for a clean energy grid?

那么你如何确保这 90 个人 投票支持清洁能源电网？

They have a quasi-judicial process.

他们有一个准司法程序。

They hold hearings.

他们会举行听证会，

They take evidence.

取证，

They consider what they're allowed to do within their statutory framework.

考虑在法定框架内 哪些事情是被允许的，

And then they make a decision.

然后再做出决定。

They have to look at human health, at economics, at reliability.

他们必须考虑人类健康、 经济和可靠性，

And they have to look at greenhouse gases.

还必须研究温室气体。

JD: Is there a breakthrough you’d like to see

约翰·杜尔： 有没有你希望看到的突破，

or an innovation you’re particularly excited about?

或者让你感到特别兴奋的创新？

HH: I'm keen on green hydrogen.

哈尔·哈维： 我对绿色氢能源很感兴趣。

I mean, we need to drive down the cost of electrolysis,

我们需要降低电解的成本，

and it's always going to be more expensive than just pure electricity.

电解总是比纯电能的成本要高。

这是背后的热力学特性决定的。

That's a thermodynamic certainty.

But once you have hydrogen,

但是一旦有了氢，

you can reform it with other chemicals into liquid fuels,

你就可以结合其他化学物质， 把它改造成液体燃料，

like synthetic diesel for airplanes or long haul trucks or ships.

例如飞机、长途卡车 或轮船使用的合成柴油。

You can use it to make fertilizers.

你可以用它来制造肥料。

And we can rethink the basics of chemistry.

我们可以重新思考化学的基础。

Chemistry's built on hydrocarbons,

化学是建立在碳氢化合物上的，

and we need to build it on carbohydrates instead.

而我们需要将其建立在 碳水化合物上。

So different kinds of molecules, but it’s not impossible.

分子种类完全不同， 但也并非不可能实现。

I guess the other thing that’s fascinating to me

让我非常感兴趣的

is this term "stranded investment."

还有“投资搁浅”这个词。

So if you own a coal-fired power plant or a coal mine today,

如果你今天在世界上任何一个地方 拥有燃煤发电厂或煤矿，

anywhere in the world almost, you have stranded your money.

那么你的钱就被套牢了，

You can't get it back.

这些钱是拿不回来的。

Because they're uneconomic.

因为它们不具备经济效益。

We analyzed every coal plant in America, the economics of every one,

我们分析了美国 每一家煤电厂的经济效益状况，

and 75 percent of them, it's cheaper to shut them down

其中的 75% 可以被关闭，

and replace them with a brand new wind or solar farm

或者用一个全新的风能 或太阳能发电厂取代，

than just pay the operating costs of that coal plant.

而这样做的成本反而要低于 该煤电厂的运营成本。

So what's going to get stranded next?

那么接下来会发生什么呢？

This is an important question.

这是一个很重要的问题。

I think natural gas is next.

我认为下一个会导致 投资搁浅的领域是天然气，

It's already skidding along at low prices.

它的价格一直在不断走低。

I think people who are putting a lot of money into gas fields right now,

我认为，现在 在气田或燃气涡轮机上

or gas turbines right now, are going to rue the day.

投入大量资金的人， 正在一条错误的道路上前进。

John, what are some of the innovations or breakthroughs

约翰，那么你特别感兴趣的

是哪些创新或突破呢？

that you’re especially excited about?

约翰·杜尔：我的朋友阿尔·戈尔（Al Gore） 取得了一个惊人的进展，

JD: Well, one exciting development comes from my friend and hero Al Gore,

who has the vision and is working with entrepreneurs,

他很有远见，胆识过人， 并且正在与企业家合作，

that by integrating data can produce,

通过整合数据，

for every place on the planet,

为地球上的各个角落

a new real-time estimate of what their carbon emissions are.

提供有关其碳排放量的 最新的实时评估数据。

You know, I come from the school of measuring what matters.

你也知道，我的背景 就是进行各种评估。

HH: Yes you do.

哈尔·哈维： 没错。

JD: If we had a real-time kind of Google Earth,

约翰·杜尔：如果我们有 一套实时的谷歌地球软件，

where we could zoom in to individual factories, or oil fields,

可以放大到各个工厂、

or Walmart stores,

油田或者沃尔玛分店，

I think that could really change the game.

那么我认为这确实 可以改变游戏规则。

I'm also a believer in carbon accounting.

我也十分笃信“碳核算”这一概念。

And so I've seen entrepreneurs who are making systems

我知道一些企业家 正在开发一种系统，

that will allow not just the owners

除了所有者，

but all the employees of an enterprise or organization

也允许企业或组织的

to see what's in their carbon supply chain.

所有员工查看 其碳供应链中的信息。

HH: Yup. Yup.

哈尔·哈维： 是的，没错。

JD: I'd love to see legislation

约翰·杜尔： 我很乐意看到

that required the OMB score every piece of legislation

要求美国行政管理和预算局（OMB） 为每一项政策的碳影响

打分的立法。

for its carbon impact.

HH: Yes.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

JD: If we're serious about this, we're going to measure what matters,

约翰·杜尔： 如果我们认真对待这一点，

measure what really matters.

就可以衡量 最重要的那些指标。

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

HH: Yup. Yup.

约翰·杜尔：那么我们来谈谈 巴黎和《巴黎协定》，

JD: So let's talk about Paris and the Paris Accord

because some people say that some nations are ahead of their plans,

因为有人说， 有些国家的碳预算已经超支了，

but others are not,

而另一些国家还没有，

and that the agenda is not aggressive enough.

而且具体议程的 约束力度还不够，

It’s not going to get us where we need to go.

并不会帮助我们实现目的。

What is your view of the Paris Accords?

你对《巴黎协定》怎么看？

HH: The Paris Accords are quite interesting animals.

哈尔·哈维： 《巴黎协定》是个很有意思的东西。

It’s not a national commitment and it’s not an international commitment.

它们既不是一项国家承诺， 也不是一项国际承诺。

JD: They're not binding.

约翰·杜尔： 没有约束力。

HH: They're not binding.

哈尔·哈维： 是的，

They're individually determined national contributions.

它们是各个国家 自行定下的承诺。

That’s the term of art that they use in the Paris Accord.

这就是他们在《巴黎协定》中 使用的术语。

JD: So what does that mean?

约翰·杜尔： 那是什么意思呢？

HH: So that means Europe says:

哈尔·哈维： 意思就是，欧洲说：

We're going to do 40 percent less carbon in 2030

例如，到 2030 年， 我们的碳排放量将比

than we did in 1990, for example.

1990 年减少 40％。

If they fail to hit that number, there’s no consequences.

如果他们没有达到这个数字， 并不需要承担任何后果。

If they go past that number, there’s no consequences.

如果他们超过了这个数字， 也不会有任何后果。

That, however, does that mean the Paris Accords are not important.

但是，那就意味着 《巴黎协定》无足轻重吗？

They're really important.

不，它们非常重要。

Because they set up, I would call it,

因为它们催生了 一个我称之为向上竞争，

a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.

而不是向下竞争的局面。

They set up a dynamic where people were sort of bidding to do better and better.

它们打造了一个动态的环境， 让人们通过互相竞争来改善环境，

They created transparency in how people are doing

并在碳排放量方面

in terms of their carbon emissions.

创造了透明度。

And there are some countries that take these commitments very seriously,

有些国家非常重视这些承诺，

and including the European Union and China on that list.

其中就包括欧盟和中国。

JD: So I'm going to push on this, and what we really need

约翰·杜尔：那么往前一步说， 我们真正需要的——

HH: Yup.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

is we need a plan.

约翰·杜尔： 是一个计划。

HH: So elaborate.

哈尔·哈维： 一个详细的计划。

JD: Well, I think what we have today are goals, not a plan.

约翰·杜尔：我认为我们今天 所拥有的只有目标，而不是计划。

And I think a plan

我认为计划

would be a set of 20 focused precision policy efforts,

应该是大概 20 项 有针对性的制定精准政策的工作，

each of whom's targeted at the right decision-maker or makers,

每项工作都是针对 这 20 个最大的国家和地区的

in the right venues, for these 20 largest nations,

四个经济领域中

in the four sectors of their economy.

对应的决策者。

And these precision campaigns would be well-funded,

这些精准的工作 将获得充足的资金，

they'd be well-focused,

目标明确，

they'd have an awesome founder/CEO/leader,

拥有一位了不起的创始人、 首席执行官，或者领导者，

an amazing staff of people,

一个出色的团队，

an accountable set of objectives and key results,

一套可问责的目标和关键结果，

and be on a timeline.

并且要按时完成。

We would measure their progress, quarter by quarter.

我们可以按季度衡量他们的进度。

That would give me hope that we'll get where we need to go by 2030.

这样就能让我相信，到 2030 年， 我们有希望达到既定目标。

How about you?

你怎么想？

HH: Let me add on a couple of characteristics

哈尔·哈维： 我想在你的基础上

to exactly what you just said.

补充几点。

And that is you need to have a deep understanding

那就是，你需要 深入了解决策者是谁，

of who the decision-maker is, ideally by person, certainly by position,

是哪些人，他们的职位是什么，

and understand exactly what motivates them or hinders them in making this decision

以及究竟是什么因素 促使或阻碍他们做出这项决策，

so that you can put all your forces on the decision-maker at point of decision.

这样一来，你就可以把所有精力 集中在某个决策点的决策者身上。

It's one thing to have a general concern about the environment or about climate.

对环境或气候的普遍关心是一回事，

It's quite another to focus that concern

而将关注点放在关于这颗星球的

on the most important decisions on the planet.

最重要决策上是另一回事。

And that's what we need to do.

这就是我们需要做的。

I love this idea.

我很喜欢这个主意。

JD: Okay, so focus on the decision-makers.

约翰·杜尔： 好的，所以要专注于决策者。

I think there's other individual action that we can and must take.

我认为我们还能够， 而且必须采取其他个人行动。

We've got to amplify your voice

我们必须放大你的声音，

so that you organize, activate, proselytize, your company,

这样你就可以组织起来，调动起来， 并且改变人们的信仰；

your neighbors, youth, I think are an incredibly powerful voice,

你的公司、邻居， 年轻人和朋友们，

and friends.

都是一种非常有力的声音。

HH: Yup.

哈尔·哈维： 没错。

JD: You need to vote.

约翰· 杜尔： 你需要投票。

HH: Yup.

哈尔·哈维： 是的。

JD: You need to vote like your life depends on it.

约翰·杜尔：这张选票 与你的生命息息相关。

So Hal, what does this all add up to?

那么哈尔， 我们来总结一下吧。

What's the takeaway?

你要传达给世界的信息是什么？

HH: I'm an optimist, John. I've seen this possible.

哈尔·哈维：我是个乐观主义者， 我之前已经见证过了奇迹。

I've seen when nations decide to do great things,

见证过不同的国家在下定决心后

they can do great things.

都实现了伟大的目标。

Think of America’s rural electrification or the interstate highway system we built.

可以想一想美国的乡村电气化， 或者是我们的州际高速公路。

Those are huge projects that transformed the country.

这些都是改变了 国家面貌的伟大工程。

What we did prepping for World War II: we built 300,000 airplanes in four years.

甚至在备战二战的那段时期， 我们在四年里建造了 30 万架飞机。

So if we decide to do something,

所以如果我们决定要做一件事，

or when the Germans or the Chinese or the Indians decide to do something,

无论是德国、中国、印度， 或任何其他国度，

other countries,

如果决定要实现一个目标，

they can get it done.

他们就一定能实现。

But if this is sort of piffling around the edges,

但是如果只是空口承诺， 却没有配备任何实际行动，

we won't get there.

我们什么都改变不了。

What do you think? Are you optimistic?

你觉得呢？ 你对前景是否乐观？

JD: My take on this is, I may not be optimistic, but I'm hopeful.

约翰·杜尔：我对此 并不是很乐观，但还是心怀希望。

I really think the crucial question is: Can we do what we must,

我觉得最重要的问题是， 我们到底能否完成必须要做的事情，

at speed and at scale?

而且速度够快，规模够大？

The good news is, it's now clearly cheaper to save the planet than to ruin it.

好在，拯救地球 比毁掉地球的代价要小得多，

The bad news is, we are fast running out of time.

然而可惜的是， 我们没多少时间了。