We need to track the world's water like we track the weather | Sonaar Luthra

譯者: Regina Chu 審譯者: Marssi Draw

We need to build a weather service for water.

我們必須為水打造氣象台。

Yet, until we collectively demand accountability,

除非我們集體要求責任歸屬，

the incentives to fund it will not exist.

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.

我第一次在研討會上演講 就是在這裡，八年前的 TED 大會。

Fresh out of grad school, little did I know

初出茅廬的研究生，一點都不知道

that in those few minutes onstage,

在台上的短短幾分鐘，

I was framing the questions I was going to be asked

會讓自己在未來十年， 陷入無窮盡的詢問。

for the next decade.

And, like too many 20-somethings,

就像太多二十多歲的人，

I expected to solve the world's problems --

我認為自己可以解決全世界的問題，

more specifically, the world's water problems --

具體一點說，全世界的水問題，

with my technology.

只要用我的科技。

I had a lot to learn.

還早得很。

It was seductive,

這想法很誘人，

believing that our biggest water quality problems persist

相信我們最大的 水質問題之所以持續，

because they're so hard to identify.

是因為這些問題很難被發現。

And I presumed

而我假設

that we just needed simpler, faster and more affordable sensors.

我們只需要用更簡單、 更快、更便宜的感測器。

I was wrong.

我錯了。

While it's true that managing tomorrow's water risk

確實，要管理明天的水風險

is going to require better data and more technology,

需要更好的數據及更多的科技，

today we're barely using the little water data that we have.

今天我們卻極少運用 我們現有的少量水數據。

Our biggest water problems persist because of what we don't do

我們最大的水問題會持續， 是因為我們不肯做該做的，

and the problems we fail to acknowledge.

以及我們未能意識到的問題。

There's actually little question

無庸置疑，

about what today's water data is telling us to do as a species:

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：

we need to conserve more,

我們需要省更多水，

and we need to pollute less.

我們需要減少污染。

But today's data is not going to help us forecast the emerging risks

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。

facing businesses and markets.

It's rapidly becoming useless for that.

它很快就變得無用。

It used to carry more value,

以前數據很有價值，

but it's never actually told us with any real accuracy

但是它從來沒有 真正準確無誤地告訴過我們

how much water we have

我們有多少水

or what's in it.

或水裡有什麼。

Let's consider the past decade of water usage statistics

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。

from each of the G20 nations.

Now, what these numbers do not tell you

這些數字不會告訴你的，

is that none of these countries directly measures how much water they use.

是這些國家都沒有 直接測量他們使用多少水。

These are all estimates,

這些數字都是估計值，

and they're based on outdated models

而且都是基於過時的模型來算，

that don't consider the climate crisis,

這些過時的模型沒有考慮氣候危機，

nor do they consider its impact on water.

也沒有考慮氣候危機對水的影響。

In 2015, Chennai, India's sixth-largest city,

2015 年，清奈 這個印度第六大城市，

was hit with the worst floods it had seen in a century.

遭受到百年來最慘的洪災。

Today, its water reservoirs are nearly dry.

今天，清奈水庫幾乎乾涸。

It took three years to get here,

這個過程只花了三年時間，

three years of subaverage rainfall.

三年低於平均的降雨量。

Now, that's faster than most nations tabulate their national water data,

這比其他國家 列表水數據的速度還快，

including the US.

包括美國。

And although there were forecasts

雖然有各種預測

that predicted severe shortages of water in Chennai,

說清奈的水會嚴重短缺，

none of them could actually help us pinpoint exactly when or where

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。

this was going to happen.

This is a new type of water problem,

這是一種新型的水問題，

because the rate at which every aspect of our water cycle changes

因為從每一層面來看， 我們的水循環改變

is accelerating.

都在加速。

As a recent UN warning this month revealed,

就像本月最新的聯合國警告顯示的，

we are now facing one new climate emergency every single week.

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.

未來的水質不確定性更大。

It's rare in most countries for most water bodies to be tested

大多數國家絕少每年都檢測 水體內的幾種污染物。

for more than a handful of contaminants in a year.

Instead of testing, we use what's called the "dilution model"

代替測試的是用我們所謂的稀釋模型

to manage pollution.

做污染管理。

Now, imagine I took an Olympic-sized swimming pool,

現在想像一下我拿一座 奧運比賽級的游泳池，

I filled it with fresh water and I added one drop of mercury.

我把它用水裝滿， 然後加一滴水銀進去。

That would dilute down to one part per billion mercury,

那會把水銀濃度稀釋到十億分之一，

which is well within what the World Health Organization

這完全在世界衛生組織的

considers safe.

安全標準之內。

But if there was any unforeseen drop in how much water was available --

但是如果可用之水無預警下降——

less groundwater, less stream flow, less water in the pool --

地下水變少了，河川水變少了， 池子的水變少了——

less dilution would take place,

稀釋作用也跟著變小，

and things would get more toxic.

東西就會變得比較毒。

So this is how most countries are managing pollution.

而這就是多數國家管理污染的方法。

They use this model to tell them how much pollution is safe.

他們用這樣的模型來判定 多少量的污染是安全的。

And it has clear weaknesses,

這有很明顯的弱點，

but it worked well enough when we had abundant water

但是效果很好—— 只要我們有充足的水量

and consistent weather patterns.

及穩定的氣候型態。

Now that we don't, we're going to need to invest and develop

現在情況不穩了， 我們需要投資及發展

new data-collection strategies.

新的數據收集策略。

But before we do that, we have to start acting on the data we already have.

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.

這是噴射機燃油火災。

As many of you may be aware,

在座很多人都知道，

jet fuel emissions play an enormous role in climate change.

噴射機燃油的廢氣排放 在氣候變遷上扮演很大的角色。

What you might not be aware of is that the US Department of Defense

但你們大概不知道美國國防部

is the world's largest consumer of jet fuel.

是全世界最大的噴射機燃油使用者。

And when they consume jet fuel,

他們用噴射機燃油的時候，

they mandate the use of the firefighting foam pictured here,

他們會強制使用圖中的滅火泡沫，

which contains a class of chemicals called PFAS.

這裡面含著一類稱為 含氟表面活性劑 (PFAS) 的化學物。

Nobody uses more of this foam than the US Department of Defense,

沒有人比美國國防部 更愛用這種泡沫，

and every time it's used, PFAS finds its way into our water systems.

而每次使用 PFAS， 它都會找到方法進入水系統中。

Globally, militaries have been using this foam since the 1970s.

全球的軍隊自 1970 年起 就開始使用這種泡沫。

We know PFAS causes cancer, birth defects,

我們知道 PFAS 會導致 癌症、先天缺陷，

and it's now so pervasive in the environment

而且現在因為太普遍存在於環境中，

that we seem to find it in nearly every living thing we test,

幾乎我們測過的 每一種生物裡都可以找到它，

including us.

包括我們身上。

But so far, the US Department of Defense has not been held accountable

但是到目前為止， 我們仍沒有追究美國國防部

for PFAS contamination,

為 PFAS 污染的責任，

nor has it been held liable.

國防部也沒有承擔任何責任。

And although there's an effort underway to phase out these firefighting foams,

雖然目前正在努力 逐步淘汰這些消防泡沫，

they're not embracing safer, effective alternatives.

他們也沒有使用 更安全更有效的替代品。

They're actually using other PFAS molecules,

他們其實正在用 其他種類的 PFAS 分子，

which may, for all we know, carry worse health consequences.

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,

所以，今天政府的責任歸屬 已經被侵蝕到幾乎不存在，

and the risk of liability from water pollution is vanishing.

而水污染的責任風險也正漸漸消失。

What types of incentives does this create for investing in our water future?

這樣能為投資水未來 創造出什麼樣的誘因？

Over the past decade, the average early stage global investment

過去十年，平均全球早期資金

in early stage water technology companies

投資在初創階段的水科技公司，

has totaled less than 30 million dollars every year.

每年總計少於三千萬美金。

That's 0.12 percent of global venture capital for early stage companies.

那只佔全球創投 在初創公司投資的 0.12%。

And public spending is not going up nearly fast enough.

而政府公用事業支出增加也不夠快。

And a closer look at it reveals that water is not a priority.

仔細看就會發現 水根本不是優先項目。

In 2014, the US federal government was spending 11 dollars per citizen

2014 年，美國聯邦政府 只花了每位公民 11 元

on water infrastructure,

在水基礎建設上，

versus 251 dollars on IT infrastructure.

卻花了每人 251 元在資訊科技上。

So when we don't use the data we have,

所以如果我們不使用現有的數據，

we don't encourage investment in new technologies,

我們就不鼓勵投資新科技，

we don't encourage more data collection

我們就不鼓勵收集更多數據，

and we certainly don't encourage investment in securing a water future.

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?

所以我們是否注定失敗？

Part of what I'm still learning

我還在繼續學習的部分，

is how to balance the doom and the urgency with things we can do,

是如何平衡厄運 及我們可以做點什麼的急迫感，

because Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion

因為格蕾塔·通貝里 及英國環保組織「反抗滅絕」

don't want our hope -- they want us to act.

不要我們的希望，他們要我們行動。

So what can we do?

所以我們能做什麼？

It's hard to imagine life without a weather service,

我們很難想像沒有氣象台的生活，

but before modern weather forecasting,

但是在現代氣象預測出現之前，

we had no commercial air travel,

我們沒有商務航空，

it was common for ships to be lost at sea,

船隻很容易在大海中失蹤，

and a single storm could produce a food shortage.

而且只要一場暴風就可以鬧飢荒。

Once we had radio and telegraph networks,

一旦我們有了無線電及電報網路，

all that was necessary to solve these problems

只需要追蹤暴風行徑 就能解決這些問題。

was tracking the movement of storms.

And that laid the foundation for a global data collection effort,

這也為全球數據收集工作打下基礎，

one that every household and every business depends upon today.

目前這已成為家家戶戶 及各種企業不可或缺的項目。

And this was as much the result of coordinated and consistent data collection

這是齊心不停收集數據的結果，

as it was the result of producing a culture that saw greater value

這也是因為我們產生了一種文化，

看到公開評估及共享

in openly assessing and sharing everything that it could find out and discover

我們找到及發現所面臨的風險 反而有更大的價值。

about the risks we face.

A global weather service for water would help us forecast water shortages.

全球水氣象服務 可以幫助我們預測缺水；

It could help us implement rationing well before reservoirs run dry.

可以早早在水庫乾涸之前 就幫助我們實施限水；

It could help us detect contamination before it spreads.

可以在污染擴散前先讓我們偵測到；

It could protect our supply chains,

可以保護我們的供應鏈，

secure our food supplies,

保障糧食供應，

and, perhaps most importantly,

以及，或許是最重要的，

it would enable the precise estimation of risk

就是它能準確估計出風險，

necessary to insure against it.

確保能與之對抗。

We know we can do this because we've already done it with weather.

我們知道我們能做到這一點， 因為我們已經拿氣象來做了。

But it's going to require resources.

但是這需要資源。

We need to encourage greater investment in water.

我們必須鼓勵增加對水的投資。

Investors, venture capitalists:

投資人、創投業者：

a portion of your funds and portfolios should be dedicated to water.

你們的基金及投資組合 有一部分應該分配給水。

Nothing is more valuable

沒有什麼比水更有價值，

and, after all, businesses are going to need to understand water risks

而且，企業終究會需要了解水風險

in order to remain competitive in the world we are entering.

以在我們要進入的世界保持競爭力。

Aside from venture capital,

除了創投，

there are also lots of promising government programs

還有很多大有前景的政府計畫

that encourage economic development through tax incentives.

透過稅收優惠鼓勵經濟發展。

A new option in the US that my company is using

在美國有一個選項， 我的公司正在用，

is called "opportunity zones."

叫做「機會區」。

They offer favorable tax treatment for investing capital gains

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。

in designated distressed and low-income areas.

Now, these are areas

這些地方

that are also facing staggering water risk,

也面臨巨大的水風險，

so this creates crucial incentives to work directly with the communities

所以這創造出重要的誘因，

直接與最需要幫助的社區合作。

who need help most.

And if you're not looking to make this type of investment

如果你不打算投資在這方面，

but you own land in the US,

但是你在美國有塊地，

did you know that you can leverage your land

你可知道你能用你的土地

to conserve water quality permanently

來永久保護水質？

with a conservation easement?

只要運用保育地役權。

You can assign the perpetual right to a local land trust

你可以讓與永久權利 給當地的土地信託

to conserve your land

以保育你的土地，

and set specific water quality goals.

並設定具體的水質目標。

And if you meet those goals,

如果你達到這些目標，

you can be rewarded with a substantial tax discount every year.

就可以每年獲得一筆可觀的減稅額。

How many areas could our global community protect

我們全球共同體透過這些 及其他計畫能保護多少地區？

through these and other programs?

They're powerful because they offer the access to real property

這些計畫非常有力， 因為藉此能取得不動產的使用權，

necessary to lay the foundation for a global weather service for water.

為全球水氣象服務奠基。

But this can only work if we use these programs as they are intended

但是這只在我們使用計畫的本意，

and not as mere vehicles for tax evasion.

而不是拿來當逃稅的工具時才有用。

When the conservation easement was established,

保育地役權創建之時，

nobody could anticipate how ingrained in environmental movements

沒有人料到製造污染的企業

corporate polluters would become.

是如何深植於環保運動中。

And we've become accustomed to companies talking about the climate crisis

我們早已習慣看到 各個公司談論氣候危機，

while doing nothing about it.

卻不做出任何行動。

This has undermined the legacy and the impact of these programs,

此舉逐漸破壞這些計畫的 名聲及影響力，

but it also makes them ripe for reclamation.

但也使重新再造的時機成熟。

Why not use conservation easements as they were intended,

為什麼不利用保育地役權的本意

to set and reach ambitious conservation goals?

去設立並達成遠大的保育目標？

Why not create opportunities in opportunity zones?

為什麼不在機會區製造機會？

Because fundamentally, water security requires accountability.

因為保障水資源一定要有責任歸屬。

Accountability is not corporate polluters sponsoring environmental groups

責任歸屬不是污染的企業 贊助幾個環保團體

and museums.

及博物館就算了。

Those are conflicts of interest.

這些都是利益衝突。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Accountability is:

責任歸屬是：

making the risk of liability too expensive

把責任風險弄得很貴，

to continue polluting and wasting our water.

貴到不值得再繼續污染 及浪費我們的水。

We can't keep settling for words. It's time to act.

我們不能再安於口號， 該採取行動了。

And where better to start than with our biggest polluters,

哪裡會比從我們 最大的污染者開始更好？

particularly the US Department of Defense, which is taxpayer-funded.

尤其是美國國防部， 它可是納稅人資助的。

Who and what are we protecting when US soldiers, their families

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

and the people who live near US military bases abroad

are all drinking toxic water?

都在喝有毒的水？

Global security can no longer remain at odds with protecting our planet

全球安全不可能與保護我們的星球

or our collective health.

或我們全體的健康相違背。

Our survival depends on it.

我們的存亡取決於它。

Similarly,

同樣地，

agriculture in most countries depends on taxpayer-funded subsidies

大部分國家的農業 都仰賴由稅金而來的補貼，

that are paid to farmers to secure and stabilize food supplies.

支付給農民以確保並穩定食物供應。

These incentives are a crucial leverage point for us,

這些激勵措施是美國重要的手段，

because agriculture is responsible for consuming 70 percent

因為農業要用掉

我們每年用水量的 70%。

of all the water we use every year.

Fertilizer and pesticide runoff

肥料及農藥逕流

are the two biggest sources of water pollution.

是兩個最大的水污染來源。

Let's restructure these subsidies to demand better water efficiency

讓我們重新調整這些補貼， 以要求更高的用水效率

and less pollution.

及更少的污染。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Finally:

最後，

we can't expect progress

我們不能指望進步，

if we're unwilling to confront the conflicts of interest

如果我們不願意面對

that suppress science,

壓制科學、

that undermine innovation

侵蝕創新

and that discourage transparency.

以及阻礙透明度的利益衝突。

It is in the public interest

公共利益就是

to measure and to share everything we can learn and discover

測量並共享我們得知及發現

about the risks we face in water.

我們面臨的水風險。

Reality does not exist until it's measured.

現實並不存在，除非測量它。

It doesn't just take technology to measure it.

我們不能只靠科技去測量它。

It takes our collective will.

還需要我們的集體意志。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）