T. Boone Pickens: Let's transform energy -- with natural gas

譯者: Andrea Huang 審譯者: Chien-Ping 洪健彬 Hung

I'm a believer.

我是位信徒。

I'm a believer in global warming,

我相信全球暖化，

and my record is good

而在這個議題上

on the subject.

我的記錄良好。

But my subject

但我要談論的主題

is national security.

是國家安全。

We have to get off of oil purchased

我們必須停止從敵人那

from the enemy.

購買石油。

I'm talking about OPEC oil.

我指的是石油輸出國組織的石油。

And let me take you back

讓我帶各位回到

100 years

100年前的

to 1912.

1912年。

You're probably thinking that was my birth year.

各位可能會認為那是我出生的年代

(Laughter)

♪笑聲♪

It wasn't. It was 1928.

不是的，我出生於1928年。

But go back to 1912,

但回到1912年

100 years ago,

100年前，

and look at that point

來看看當時

what we, our country, was faced with.

我們的國家所面臨的問題。

It's the same energy question

是與今日我們所面臨的問題

that you're looking at today,

是相同的，

but it's different sources of fuel.

只是是不一樣的燃料源。

A hundred years ago

100年前

we were looking at coal, of course,

我們找煤炭，當然啦

and we were looking at whale oil

我們也在尋找鯨油

and we were looking at crude oil.

和原油。

At that point,

在當時，

we were looking for a fuel

我們希望的燃料

that was cleaner,

是較乾淨、

it was cheaper,

較便宜的，

and it wasn't ours though,

然而那不是我們的燃料，

it was theirs.

那是他們的。

So at that point, 1912,

在當時1912年，

we selected crude oil over whale oil

我們選擇了原油而不是鯨油

and some more coal.

以及再多點煤炭。

But as we moved on

然而往前進

to the period now, 100 years later,

到現在，也就是100年後，

we're back really

我們確實回到了

at another decision point.

另一個決策點。

What is the decision point?

決策點是什麼？

It's what we're going to use

就是我們未來要採用

in the future.

什麼燃料。

So from here,

所以從此刻

it's pretty clear to me,

我相當的清楚，

we would prefer to have

我們寧願採用

cleaner, cheaper,

較乾淨、較便宜、

domestic, ours --

國內的、我們的--

and we have that, we have that --

我們有的--

which is natural gas.

也就是天然氣。

So here you are,

來看看這裡，

that the cost of all this to the world

全球要為當時決策付出的代價

is 89 million barrels of oil,

是8千9百萬桶石油，

give or take a few barrels, every day.

這大約是每天的用量。

And the cost annually

全年下來的成本

is three trillion dollars.

是3兆美元。

And one trillion of that

其中有1兆

goes to OPEC.

是付給石油輸出國組織。

That has got to be stopped.

一定要中止這樣局勢。

Now if you look at the cost of OPEC,

如果觀察石油輸出國組織的成本，

it cost seven trillion dollars --

成本是7兆美元--

on the Milken Institute study last year --

根據米爾肯研究機構去年做的研究--

seven trillion dollars

自從1976年來，

since 1976,

7兆美元

is what we paid for oil from OPEC.

是我們從石油輸出國組織所支付的石油成本。

Now that includes the cost of military

這包含軍事

and the cost of the fuel both.

以及燃料二種成本。

But it's the greatest transfer of wealth,

然而這是在人類歷史上

from one group to another

財富最龐大的從一個組織轉移

in the history of mankind.

到另一個組織。

And it continues.

而且還在持續進行中。

Now when you look

當你在找

at where is the transfer of wealth,

財富移轉的地區時

you can see here

你會注意到

that we have the arrows

有個箭頭

going into the Mid-East

從我們這裡

and away from us.

指向中東地區。

And with that,

有鑑於此，

we have found ourselves

我們發現自已

to be the world's policemen.

扮演起世界警察的角色。

We are policing the world,

我們在維護世界治安，

and how are we doing that?

我們怎麼維護世界的治安呢？

I know the response to this.

我知道我們如何做的。

I would bet there aren't 10 percent of you in the room

我打賭在座不到10%的人

that know how many aircraft carriers there are in the world.

知道全世界有幾艘航空母艦。

Raise your hand if you think you know.

認為自己知道答案的人舉手。

There are 12.

有12艘。

One is under construction by the Chinese

有1艘中國在建造當中

and the other 11 belong to us.

另11艘是我們的。

Why do we have 11 aircraft carriers?

為何要有11艘航空母艦？

Do we have a corner on the market?

是因為我們獨占了這個市場嗎?

Are we smarter than anybody else? I'm not sure.

還是我們比其它人聰明嗎？我不確定。

If you look at where they're located --

如果觀察航空母艦停泊地--

and on this slide it's the red blobs on there --

這張幻燈片上的紅點標示區--

there are five that are operating in the Mid-East,

有5艘在中東執勤，

and the rest of them are in the United States.

其餘的在美國。

They just move back to the Mid-East and those come back.

5艘是剛派遣過去的，這些是剛回來的。

So actually most of the 11 we have

因此事實上大部分這11艘航空母艦

are tied up in the Mid-East.

都跟中東地區情事相關聯。

Why? Why are they in the Mid-East?

為什麼？航空母艦為何要駐紮中東地區呢？

They're there to control,

因為要控制當地，

keep the shipping lanes open

確保航道通行

and make oil available.

以及石油的取得。

And the United States uses about 20 million barrels a day,

美國每天用油量約2千萬桶，

which is about 25 percent of all the oil used

約佔全世界每天用油量的

everyday in the world.

25﹪。

And we're doing it with four percent of the population.

而且要4﹪的人口來從事這件事。

Somehow that doesn't seem right.

這似乎有點怪怪的。

That's not sustainable.

這並不是長遠之計。

So where do we go from here?

所以我們要怎麼辦呢？

Does that continue?

那會持續下去？

Yes, it's going to continue.

沒錯，狀況會持續下去。

The slide you're looking at here

這張幻燈片你們看到

is 1990 to 2040.

的是1990到2040年。

Over that period

在這期間

you are going to double your demand.

對油的需求量會變雙倍。

And when you look at what we're using the oil for,

來看看我們應用石油在哪些領域，

70 percent of it

70﹪

is used for transportation fuel.

是用在交通運輸上。

So when somebody says,

因此當有人提倡，

"Let's go more nuclear,

“用核能、

let's go wind, let's go solar,"

風能、太陽能吧“，

fine; I'm for anything American,

對我來說用什麼都好；只要是美國做的我都贊成，

anything American.

是美國自己生產的都行。

But if you're going to do anything

然而如果是以仰賴

about the dependency on foreign oil,

國外燃料為出發點，

you have to address transportation.

那麼就必須滿足運輸使用燃料的問題。

So here we are

我們

using 20 million barrels a day --

每天用掉2千萬桶石油--

producing eight, importing 12,

自產8百萬桶，進口1千兩百萬桶，

and from the 12,

這1千兩百萬桶之中，

five comes from OPEC.

有5百萬桶來至石油輸出國組織。

When you look at the biggest user and the second largest user,

來看看世界第一及第二用油國家，

we use 20 million barrels

我們用2千萬桶

and the Chinese use 10.

中國用1千萬桶。

The Chinese have a little bit better plan --

中國有較佳的規劃--

or they have a plan;

或者說他們有了計劃；

we have no plan.

而我們沒有。

In the history of America,

由美國歴史中看來，

we've never had an energy plan.

我們從來沒有過有能源規劃。

We don't even realize the resources

我們甚至不知道

that we have available to us.

自己有什麼可用的資源。

If you take the last 10 years

如果把過去10年

and bring forward,

拿出來計算，

you've transferred to OPEC a trillion dollars.

我們已經付了1兆美元給石油輸出國組織。

If you go forward the next 10 years

如果再往未來估算10年

and cap the price of oil at 100 dollars a barrel,

並限制每桶石油價格為100美元，

you will pay 2.2 trillion.

要支付的費用為2.2兆美元。

That's not sustainable either.

這不也不是長久之計。

But the days of cheap oil are over.

但廉價石油的時代已經結束了。

They're over.

時代結束了。

They make it very clear to you,

他們很清楚的向你表示，

the Saudis do,

沙烏地表示，

they have to have 94 dollars a barrel

油價必須每桶來到94美元

to make their social commitments.

他們才要履行供應的社會責任。

Now I had people in Washington last week told me,

上周一位華盛頓的人士跟我說，

he said, "The Saudis can produce the oil

“沙烏地生產石油

for five dollars a barrel.

每桶成本是5美元。

That has nothing to do with it.

那根本無法可管，

It's what they have to pay for

也就是油價不管多高

is what we are going to pay for oil."

全民都必須照單全收”。

There is no free market for oil.

石油沒有所謂的自由市場機制。

The oil is priced off the margin.

油價是以利潤定價。

And the OPEC nations

油價是由石油輸出國組織

are the ones that price the oil.

制定的。

So where are we headed from here?

因此從這個局勢我們被導向何處呢？

We're headed to natural gas.

我們被導向天然氣。

Natural gas will do everything

天然氣可以幫

we want it to do.

我們解決每個問題。

It's 130 octane fuel.

天然氣是130辛烷值燃料。

It's 25 percent cleaner than oil.

它比石油清潔25﹪。

It's ours, we have an abundance of it.

是我們自有的，我們有豐富的儲藏量。

And it does not require a refinery.

它不需要煉油廠再提煉。

It comes out of the ground at 130 octane.

從地底開採出來就是130辛烷值了。

Run it through the separator and you're ready to use it.

通過分離器後就可以用了。

It's going to be very simple for us to use.

對我們而言使用上將會相當的便利。

It's going to be simple to accomplish this.

很簡單就能做到。

You're going to find, and I'll tell you in just a minute,

你們會得到你們殷切期盼的解答，

what you're looking for to make it happen.

而我待會將馬上向你們說明。

But here you can look at the list.

先來看看這張圖表，

Natural gas will fit all of those.

天然氣可以解決所有這些問題。

It will replace or be able to be used for that.

它可以取代或做為可適用性燃料。

It's for power generation, transportation,

可用在發電、交通、

it's peaking fuel, it's all those.

燃值高、這些都是它的優勢。

Do we have enough natural gas?

我們有足夠的天然氣儲藏量嗎？

Look at the bar on the left. It's 24 trillion.

看左邊這個長條圖。24兆

It's what we use a year.

是我們一年的用量。

Go forward

再下來

and the estimates that you have

看到美國能源信息署的

from the EIA and onto the industry estimates --

估計以及工業估計--

the industry knows what they're talking about --

該工業非常清楚自己在講什麼--

we've got 4,000 trillion cubic feet

將近4千兆立方尺

of natural gas that's available to us.

的天然氣量供我們使用。

How does that translate

這大約等於

to barrels of oil equivalent?

多少桶的原油呢？

It would be three times

是沙烏地所宣稱

what the Saudis claim they have.

擁有石油量的三倍。

And they claim they have 250 billion barrels of oil,

他們宣稱擁有2千5百億桶原油，

which I do not believe.

我不相信。

I think it's probably 175 billion barrels.

我認為應該只有1千750億桶。

But anyway, whether they say they're right or whatever,

但不論他們說的正不正確，

we have plenty of natural gas.

我們有很富豐的天然氣。

So I have tried to target

所以我要著眼

on where we use the natural gas.

在天然氣的應用方向。

And where I've targeted

我的目標是

is on the heavy-duty trucks.

重型卡車。

There are eight million of them.

有8百萬輛卡車。

You take eight million trucks --

8百萬輛卡車--

these are 18-wheelers --

18個輪子的卡車--

and take them to natural gas,

採用天然氣的話，

reduce carbon by 30 percent,

可以減少30﹪的二氧化碳，

it is cheaper

它價格較便宜

and it will cut our imports

而且可以降低3百萬桶

three million barrels.

的石油進口量。

So you will cut 60 percent off of OPEC

如此一來，以8百萬輛的卡車就可以減少從石油輸出國組織

with eight million trucks.

進口石油量的60﹪。

There are 250 million vehicles in America.

全美有2億5千萬輛的汽車。

So what you have

因此

is natural gas is the bridge fuel,

天然氣是銜接燃料，

is the way I see it.

我是這麼認為的。

I don't have to worry

以我的年紀，我不必擔心

about the bridge to where at my age.

這座橋樑銜接到什麼燃料。

(Laughter)

♪眾笑♪

That's your concern.

那是你們要擔心的。

But when you look at the natural gas we have

然而檢視我們擁有的天然氣，

it could very well be

它會是相當好的

the bridge to natural gas,

橋接燃料，

because you have plenty of natural gas.

因為它的蘊藏量豐富。

But as I said, I'm for anything American.

然而就如我之前說的，只要是美國自產的我都接受。

Now let me take you -- I've been a realist --

現在讓我來帶領你們--我一直是唯實論者--

I went from theorist early to realist.

我從早期的理論者變成現唯實論者。

I'm back to theorist again.

現在我又回到理論學派。

If you look at the world,

看看這世界，

you have methane hydrates in the ocean

各大洲被含甲烷水合物

around every continent.

的海洋包圍著。

And here you can see methane,

甲烷隨處可見，

if that's the way you're going to go,

假使要應用甲烷水合物，

that there's plenty of methane --

那麼那是相當的富足的燃料--

natural gas is methane,

天然氣就是甲烷，

methane and natural gas are interchangeable --

二者是可以互相交換的--

but if you decide

然而如果你們決定

that you're going to use some methane --

要採用些甲烷--

and I'm gone, so it's up to you --

而我不在人世，因此決定權在你們--

but we do have

但我們的確擁有

plenty of methane hydrates.

相當豐富的甲烷水合物。

So I think I've made my point

因此，我想我的論點已經很清楚了：

that we have to get on our own resources in America.

我們要用美國自有的資源。

If we do --

如果這麼做的話--

it's costing us a billion dollars a day for oil.

我們一天用在石油的花費要10億美元。

And yet, we have no energy plan.

然而我們確沒有應變的能源規劃。

So there's nothing going on

因此，

that impresses me

華府對於能源所做規劃，

in Washington on that plan,

一點也沒有

other than I'm trying to focus

比我專注於解決

on that eight million 18-wheelers.

8百萬輛重型卡車的燃料所需來的實際。

If we could do that,

假定我們能夠這麼做的話，

I think we would take our first step

我想我們就能向能源計劃

to an energy plan.

跨出第一步了。

If we did, we could see

如果我們去做了，會了解

that our own resources are easier to use

採用我們自有資源，會比任何人想像

than anybody can imagine.

要來的容易。

Thank you.

謝謝各位。

(Applause)

♪掌聲♪

Chris Anderson: Thanks for that.

克里斯·安德森：謝謝你的演說。

So from your point of view,

從你的觀點來看，

you had this great Pickens Plan

你曾有個偉大的皮肯斯計劃

that was based on wind energy,

是以風能為主軸，

and you abandoned it basically

而之後放棄這個計劃是基於

because the economics changed.

經濟的變動。

What happened?

發生了什麼事？

TBP: I lost 150 million dollars.

提 布恩·皮肯斯回答：我損失了1億5千萬美元。

(Laughter)

♪笑聲♪

That'll make you abandon something.

那會讓你放棄某件事情。

No, what happened to us, Chris,

不是的，克里斯，

is that power, it's priced off the margin.

以利潤做為標價原則改變了我們的計劃。

And so the margin is natural gas.

而利潤就是天然氣。

And at the time I went into the wind business,

當時我進入風能產業時，

natural gas was nine dollars.

天然氣是9美元。

Today it's two dollars and forty cents.

今天天然氣的價格是2.4美元。

You cannot do a wind deal

風能價格低於

under six dollars an MCF.

1千立方尺6美元是做不起來的。

CA: So what happened was

克里斯：所以事情的原委就是

that, through increased ability

因為透過

to use fracking technology,

水力壓裂鑽井技術的提昇，

the calculated reserves of natural gas kind of exploded

天然氣的估計儲備量爆增

and the price plummeted,

以及價格的爆跌

which made wind uncompetitive.

是導致風能失去競爭力的原因。

In a nutshell that's what happened?

簡言之就是這樣嗎？

TBP: That's what happened.

提 布恩·皮肯斯：是的。

We found out that we could go to the source rock,

我們發現水力壓裂鑽井技術可以用在生油岩

which were the carboniferous shales in the basins.

也就是石炭系頁岩盆地。

The first one was Barnett Shale in Texas

第一個是德州的巴納特頁岩

and then the Marcellus up in the Northeast

接著是東北方這個含概紐約、賓州、西維吉尼亞

across New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia;

的馬塞勒斯頁岩；

and Haynesville in Louisiana.

以及在路易斯安那州的海納斯維爾頁岩。

This stuff is everywhere.

頁岩到處都是。

We are overwhelmed with natural gas.

天然氣多到讓我們不知所措。

CA: And now you're a big investor in that and bringing that to market?

克里斯：所以你現在作大投資，並且向市場引進這個技術？

TBP: Well you say a big investor.

提·布恩·皮肯斯：你稱我為大投資者。

It's my life.

我認為它是我的生命。

I'm a geologist, got out of school in '51,

我是位地質學家，1951年從學校畢業，

and I've been in the industry my entire life.

我一生都待在這個產業。

Now I do own stocks.

現在我確認持有股票。

I'm not a big natural gas producer.

但我不是產天然氣的大廠。

Somebody the other day said

過去有人說過

I was the second largest natural gas producer in the United States.

我是美國第二大天然氣生產商。

Don't I wish.

我也希望是。

But no, I'm not. I own stocks.

但我不是。我只是持股而己。

But I also am in the fueling business.

而我也涉足燃料業務。

CA: But natural gas is a fossil fuel.

克里斯：但是天然氣是化石燃料。

You burn it,

燃燒天然氣

you release CO2.

會釋出二氧化碳。

So you believe in the threat of climate change.

既然你相信氣候變遷的威脅

Why doesn't that prospect

為何你不擔心

concern you?

它會衍生的問題呢？

TBP: Well you're going to have to use something.

提·布恩·皮肯斯：你還是得使用燃料呀。

What do you have to replace it?

你要用什麼來替代呢？

(Laughter)

♪笑聲♪

CA: No, no. The argument that it's a bridge fuel makes sense,

克里斯：不是在說那件事。橋接燃料的論點合理，

because the amount of CO2 per unit of energy

因為每能量單位的二氧化碳含量

is lower than oil and coal, correct?

低於石油及煤炭，對吧？

And so everyone can be at least happy

因此，基於這點，大家至少會欣然接受

to see a shift from coal or oil to natural gas.

由用煤炭或石油轉移到使用天然氣。

But if that's it

但如果就僅僅這樣，

and that becomes the reason

而因此

that renewables don't get invested in,

再生能源沒人投資發展，

then, long-term, we're screwed anyway, right?

那麼，長期下我們還是得自食惡果，不是嗎？

TBP: Well I'm not ready to give up,

提·布恩·皮肯斯：讓我再補充說明一下，

but Jim and I talked

吉姆離開那時，

there as he left,

我跟他談了一下話，

and I said, "How do you feel about natural gas?"

我問他：＂你覺得天然氣可行嗎？

And he said, "Well it's a bridge fuel, is what it is."

他回答：＂它可做為橋接燃料，就這樣＂。

And I said, "Bridge to what?

我接著問：＂橋接什麼燃料呢？

Where are we headed?"

我們的目標在哪？＂

See but again, I told you, I don't have to worry with that.

看吧，就如我講的，我不用去擔心這個問題。

You all do.

你們才要擔心。

CA: But I don't think that's right, Boone.

克里斯：但是布恩，我不認為那樣想是對的。

I think you're a person who believes in your legacy.

我認為你是位為後代樹立典範的人。

You've made the money you need.

你要的財富都賺到了。

You're one of the few people in a position

你是少數幾位

to really swing the debate.

能影響輿論的有力人士。

Do you support the idea of some kind of price on carbon?

你支持按二氧化碳課費的概念嗎？

Does that make sense?

那樣做有意義嗎？

TBP: I don't like that

提·布恩·皮肯斯：我不喜歡

because it ends up the government is going to run the program.

因為到頭來那是由政府來操作。

I can tell you it will be a failure.

我敢說那一定會失敗的。

The government is not successful

政府無法成功的

on these things.

推動這些事情。

They just aren't, it's a bad deal.

它們就是做不到。那是個壞點子。

Look at Solyndra, or whatever it was.

看看索林卓太陽能公司或其它例子就知道。

I mean, that was told to be a bad idea 10 times,

我的意義是，那計劃大家都認為爛透了，

they went ahead and did it anyway.

但政府還是做了。

But that only blew out 500 million.

雖然只搞砸5億美金。

I think it's closer to a billion.

但我認為應該有將近10億。

But Chris, I think where we're headed,

但是克里斯，我認為我們的方向

the long-term,

長期而言，

I don't mind going back to nuclear.

可以採用核能。

And I can tell you what the last page

我可以跟你們說

of the report that will take them five years to write

它們花上5年時間所撰寫的核能報告的最後一頁

will be.

內容寫什麼。

One, don't build a reformer on a fault.

第一：不要在斷層帶上建造重組器。

(Laughter)

♪笑聲♪

And number two,

第二：

do not build a reformer on the ocean.

重組器不能建在海上。

And now I think reformers are safe.

這麼一來，我認為重組器就很安全了。

Move them inland

將重組器移到陸上

and on very stable ground

在地質相當穏定的地方

and build the reformers.

來蓋重組器。

There isn't anything wrong with nuke.

核能本身沒什麼問題。

You're going to have to have energy. There is no question.

大家都需要能源。這是毫無疑問的。

You can't -- okay.

沒辦法不用能源--就這樣。

CA: One of the questions from the audience

克里斯：聽眾有個問題要請教

is, with fracking and the natural gas process,

採用水力壓裂鑽井技術以及天然氣製程的話，

what about the problem of methane leaking from that,

那麼甲烷洩漏的問題要如何應變呢？

methane being a worse global warming gas

甲烷是比二氧化碳還要糟糕

than CO2?

的溫室氣體。

Is that a concern?

難到不用擔心這點嗎？

TBP: Fracking? What is fracking?

提·布恩·皮肯斯：水力鴨子？那是什麼？（英美對a的發音不同）

CA: Fracking.

克里斯：水力壓裂。

TBP: I'm teasing.

提·布恩·皮肯斯：逗你的啦。

(Laughter)

♪笑聲♪

CA: We've got a little bit of accent incompatibility here, you know.

克里斯：你知道的，我們在發音上是有點不太一致的。

TBP: No, let me tell you,

提·布恩·皮肯斯：我跟你說，

I've told you what my age was.

我已經說過我的年紀了。

I got out of school in '51.

我1951年從學校畢業。

I witnessed my first frack job

1953年我第一次參與的水力壓裂鑽井工程

at border Texas in 1953.

是在德州邊界。

Fracking came out in '47,

水力壓裂鑽井技術是在1947年發明的，

and don't believe for a minute

我真不敢相信

when our president gets up there

我們的總統到了那

and says the Department of Energy 30 years ago

說水力壓裂鑽井技術是30年前

developed fracking.

能源部發明的。

I don't know what in the hell he's talking about.

真不知道他到底在說什麼。

I mean seriously, the Department of Energy

我說真的，那時能源部

did not have anything to do with fracking.

不知道什麼是水力壓裂鑽井技術。

The first frack job was in '47.

第一件水力壓裂鑽井工程是在1947年。

I saw my first one in '53.

我第一次參與是1953年。

I've fracked over 3,000 wells in my life.

我此生已水力壓裂鑽超過3千口井。

Never had a problem

從來沒有

with messing up an aquifer or anything else.

破壞過含水層或引發任何問題。

Now the largest aquifer in North America

北美最大的含水層

is from Midland, Texas to the South Dakota border,

是從德州的米德蘭市到南達科塔州州界，

across eight states --

縱貫了8個州--

big aquifer:

這片廣大的含水層被稱為：

Ogallala, Triassic age.

奧加拉拉含水層，型成於三疊紀。

There had to have been 800,000 wells fracked

在那片含水層中，

in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas

奧克拉何馬州、德州及堪薩斯州，已經有超過80萬口天然氣井

in that aquifer.

是以水力壓裂鑽鑿。

There's no problems.

都沒出現過問題。

I don't understand why

我不了解為何

the media is focused on Eastern Pennsylvania.

媒體要聚焦在賓州東部。

CA: All right, so you don't support a carbon tax of any kind

克里斯：好的，所以你不支持課征任何形式的碳稅

or a price on carbon.

或碳費。

Your picture then I guess

那麼我認為

of how the world eventually gets off fossil fuels

世界最終如何擺脫化石燃料

is through innovation ultimately,

在你的構想下，是藉由創新來達成，

that we'll someday make solar and nuclear cost competitive?

也就是說未來我們會將太陽能與核能發展到具成本競爭力嗎？

TBP: Solar and wind, Jim and I agreed on that in 13 seconds.

提·布恩·皮肯斯：提姆跟我對太陽及風能只稍稍認同了一會。

That is, it's going to be a small part,

就只有短短13秒而已。那部分實在太小了，

because you can't rely on it.

以致於不可靠。

CA: So how does the world get off fossil fuels?

克里斯：那麼如何擺脫化石燃料？

TBP: How do we get there?

提·布恩·皮肯斯：如何擺脫？

We have so much natural gas,

我們有那麼富豐的天然氣，

a day will not come

你們所謂的

where you say, "Well let's don't use that anymore."

＂不再用化石燃料＂的那天是不會到來的。

You'll keep using it. It is the cleanest of all.

會一直使用。它是最乾淨的能源。

And if you look at California,

看看加州，

they use 2,500 buses.

它們有2千5百輛巴士。

LAMTA have been on natural gas

洛杉磯大都會運輸署採用天然氣巴士

for 25 years.

有25年了。

The Ft. Worth T

沃斯堡大眾運輸

has been on it for 25 years.

採用天然氣巴士也有25年。

Why? Air quality was the reason they used natural gas

那是為什麼？維護空氣品質是它們採用天然氣

and got away from diesel.

而不用柴油的原因。

Why are all the trash trucks today in Southern California

南加州全部的垃圾車為何都

on natural gas?

採用天然氣？

It's because of air quality.

是為了維護空氣品質。

I know what you're telling me, and I'm not disagreeing with you.

我知道你要傳達給我的訊息為何，我不反對你的論點。

How in the hell can we get off the natural gas at some point?

我們究竟要如何擺脫天氣然？

And I say, that is your problem.

我的答案是，那是你們要解決的。

(Laughter)

♪笑聲♪

CA: All right,

克里斯：好吧，

so it's the bridge fuel.

它是做為銜接燃料的。

What is at the other end of that bridge

銜接到何處

is for this audience to figure out.

是在座各位要解決的問題。

If someone comes to you with a plan

如果有人向你提個計劃

that really looks like it might be part of this solution,

那計劃真的有可能是解決方案的一部分，

are you ready to invest in those technologies,

你會投資那些技術，

even if they aren't maximized for profits,

即便那不是很有利潤，

they might be maximized for the future health of the planet?

但可能會為地球生靈的未來福祉帶來最大的利益嗎？

TBP: I lost 150 million on the wind, okay.

提·布恩·皮肯斯：我已損失1億5千萬在開發風能上了。

Yeah, sure, I'm game for it.

所以當然了，我會投資的。

Because, again,

原因再說一次，

I'm trying to get energy solved for America.

我一直努力的在為美國解決能源議題。

And anything American

只要是出自於美國，

will work for me.

我都認同。

CA: Boone, I really, really appreciate you coming here,

克里斯：布恩，我真的相當感激你到這裡來

engaging in this conversation.

做這演說。

I think there's a lot of people who will want to engage with you.

我想很多人都想要跟你交流。

And that was a real gift you gave this audience.

你給聽眾們的演說真的相當的寶貴。

Thank you so much. (TBP: You bet, Chris. Thank you.)

非常感謝你。（提·布恩·皮肯斯：不客氣。謝謝。）

(Applause)

♪掌聲♪