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

Transcriber: TED Translators Admin Reviewer: Rhonda Jacobs

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

John Doerr: Hello, Hal!

約翰杜爾：哈囉，哈爾！

Hal Harvey: John, nice to see you.

哈爾哈維：約翰，很高興見到你。

JD: Nice to see you too.

約：我也很高興見到你。

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

哈：約翰，我們有個大挑戰。

We need to get carbon out of the atmosphere.

我們得減少大氣中的碳。

We need to stop emitting carbon,

我們得要阻止碳排放， 在 2050 年時把排放量降為零。

drive it to zero by 2050.

And we need to be halfway there by 2030.

到 2030 年時必須要完成一半。

Where are we now?

我們目前的進度如何？

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

約：你也知道，每年 我們會將 550 億公噸的碳污染

of carbon pollution in our precious atmosphere every year,

傾注到我們珍貴的大氣中，

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

好像大氣是種免費的 開放式下水道一樣。

To get halfway to zero by 2030,

若要在 2030 年達成目標的一半，

we're going to have to reduce annual emissions

我們每年的年排放量

by about 10 percent a year.

都必須減少大約 10%。

And we've never reduced annual emissions in any year

反觀地球歷史，

我們的年排放量 從來沒有比前一年減少過。

in the history of the planet.

So let's break this down.

我們來分析一下。

Seventy-five percent of the emissions

碳排放中有 75%

come from the 20 largest emitting countries.

來自排名前 20 的最大排放國，

And from four sectors of their economy.

排放源是他們經濟體中的四大活動：

The first is grid.

第一、電力。

Second, transportation.

第二、交通。

The third from the buildings.

第三、建築物。

And the fourth from industrial activities.

第四、工業活動。

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

我們得要大規模、快速地 解決這些排放源的問題。

HH: We do.

哈：的確。

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

有些問題比我們所想的更糟， 有些則比較好。

Let me start with the worse.

讓我從比較糟的談起。

Climate change is a wicked problem.

氣候變遷是個詭譎的問題。

And what do I mean by wicked problem?

詭譎的問題是什麼意思？

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

意思就是這個問題超越了地理界線。

The sources are everywhere, and the impacts are everywhere.

源頭無所不在，影響也無所不在。

Although obviously some nations have contributed much more than others.

雖然有些國家的排放 明顯比其他國家多很多。

更實在地說，氣候變遷很糟糕的一點

In fact, one of the terrible things about climate change

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

就是排放最少的國家 受到傷害反而最大。

氣候變遷是製造不平等的巨大機器。

It's a great inequity machine.

So here we have a problem that you cannot solve

所以，我們手上有個在任何單一國家內

within the national boundaries of one country,

無法解決的問題，

and yet international institutions are notoriously weak.

但國際性機構又很弱。

So that's part of the wicked problem.

所以那是問題很詭譎的一個地方。

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

詭譎問題的第二個元素，

就是它超越了正常的時程。

We're used to news day by day,

我們習慣的是每天有不同的新聞事件、

or quarterly reports for business enterprises,

企業有季報，

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

或選舉有一定的循環—— 這可能是時程最長的了。

而氣候變遷是永遠存在的；

Climate change essentially lasts forever.

二氧化碳排放到大氣之後，

When you put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,

它會一直在那裡，也一直會造成衝擊，

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

而且會持續一千年。

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

我們不斷將這份「禮物」 給予我們的子孫，

and dozens and dozens of generations beyond there.

以及之後的幾十代。

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

約：聽起來像是永遠付不完的稅。

HH: Yeah, it is. It is.

哈：是的，沒錯。 犯一次錯，永遠要付出代價。

You sin once, you pay forever.

And then the third element of it being a wicked problem

接著，這個詭譎問題的第三個元素

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

就是我們工業經濟的每個面向 都會排放二氧化碳。

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

每台汽車、每台卡車、 每架飛機、每間房子、

and every electrical socket, and every industrial processes

每個插座、每個工業流程，

now emits carbon dioxide.

現在都在排放二氧化碳。

JD: So what's the recipe?

約：那怎麼著手？

HH: Well, here's the shortcut.

哈：有條捷徑。

If you decarbonize the grid, the electrical grid,

如果我們將電網脫碳，

and then run everything on electricity --

再讓所有東西都靠電力運作，

decarbonize the grid and electrify everything --

將電網脫碳，再把一切電氣化——

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

如果做到這兩點，就能達成零碳經濟。

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

幾年前，這還只是空想，

因為建造零碳電網非常昂貴。

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

But the prices of solar and wind have plummeted.

但太陽能和風力的價格已經大幅下跌。

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

現在太陽能是地球上 最便宜的電力形式，

and wind is second.

風力排名第二。

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

那就表示，現在可以 快速把電網轉換成零碳，

and save consumers money along the way.

順便幫消費者省錢。

So there's leverage.

這是有優勢的。

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

約：哈爾，我認為關鍵問題在於

我們是否擁有必要的技術

to replace fossil fuels to get this job done?

來取代化石燃料，然後完成這個目標？

And my answer is no.

我的答案是，沒有。

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

我認為我們大概只做到了七、八成。

For example, we urgently need a breakthrough in batteries.

比如，我們迫切需要 在電池上有所突破。

Our batteries need to be higher energy density.

我們的電池必須有更高的能源密度。

They need to have enhanced safety, faster charging.

電池的安全性要強化，充電要更快。

They need to take less space and less weight,

電池的體積和重量都要減少，

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

最重要的是，成本必須下降很多。

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

事實上，繼續仰賴稀有的鈷不是辦法，

我們需要在化學上創新，

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

且我們會需要很多這樣的電池。

We desperately need much more research in clean energy technology.

我們非常需要針對 乾淨能源技術做更多研究。

The US invests about 2.5 billion dollars a year.

美國每年投資約 250 億美金。

Do you know how much Americans spend on potato chips?

你知道美國人花多少錢 在洋芋片上嗎？

HH: No.

哈：不知道。 約：答案是 40 億美金。

JD: The answer is 4 billion dollars.

Now, what do you think of that?

你有什麼想法？

HH: Upside down.

哈：完全反了。

But let me press a little further

但，讓我再進一步談談

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

一個讓我著迷的問題，和矽谷有關。

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

矽谷的表現符合摩爾定律；

每十八個月，表現就會加倍。

where performance doubles every 18 months.

那其實不是定律，是觀察，

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

但我們就當它是定律吧。

but be that as it may.

The energy world is governed by much more mundane laws,

能源世界用的是更世俗的定律，

the laws of thermodynamics, right?

熱力學定律，對吧？

It's physical stuff in the economy.

那是經濟當中的實體物體：

Cement, trucks, factories, power plants.

水泥、卡車、工廠、電廠。

JD: Atoms, not bits.

約：原子而不是位元組成的東西。

HH: Atoms, not bits. Perfect.

哈：原子，不是位元。說得好。

And the transformation of big physical things is slower,

大型實物的生產較慢、

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

利潤更少，

且通常都是沒有專利的商品。

How do we stimulate the kind of innovation in those worlds

在這樣的背景下，

我們要如何刺激創新來拯救地球？

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

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

約：那是個好問題。

The innovation starts with basic science in research and development.

創新始於研發的基本科學。

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

而美國在這方面的決心

雖然在全球來說是很先進的，

is still paltry.

但仍然不足；

It needs to be 10 times higher

投入的資金需要比我們每年花費在

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

乾淨能源研發的 25 億美金再高 10 倍。

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

但我們要努力的方向 也不只是研發而已，

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

還需要有一種發展，

一種前商品化。

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

在美國是由一個叫做 「ARPA-E」的團體在做。

Then there's the matter of forming new companies.

接著，還要成立新公司。

HH: Yes.

哈：嗯。

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

約：我認為，

創業能量都轉向，回到那個領域了。

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

很顯然，這要花較長的時間 和較多的資本，

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

但你可以建造一個很實在、

有價值的企業或公司。

HH: Yes.

哈：是的。

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

約：特斯拉就是個好例子， 「超越肉類」公司也是。

And that's inspiring entrepreneurs globally.

那能鼓舞全世界的企業家。

But that's not enough.

但那還不夠。

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

我認為還需要各國用政策和採購

來刺激對這類產品的需求，

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

才能維持這樣的市場，

像是德國在太陽能方面的作法。

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

我的本質是個資本主義者。

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

我認為這個能源危機

能夠孕育未來所有市場，

And it will take longer.

花的時間會比較長。

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

但電動車電池的市場——

每年五千億美金。

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

如果連靜置電池也算， 可能還有另外五千億美金。

I want to tell you another story that involves policy,

我想再說一個故事，它和政策有關，

but importantly, plans.

但更重要的是，和計畫有關。

Now, Shenzhen is a city of 15 million people,

深圳的人口有一千五百萬人，

an innovative city, in China.

它是中國的創新城市。

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

他們決定要改用電動巴士。

所以他們要求所有巴士 都必須是電動的。

And so they required all buses be electric.

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

事實上，他們要求所有 停車位都要有相應的充電座。

So today, Shenzhen has 18,000 electric buses.

現今，深圳有一萬八千輛電動巴士。

It has 21,000 electric taxis.

有兩萬一千輛電動計程車。

And this goodness didn't just happen.

這麼好的事不是自然發生的。

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

這樣的成果來自於 一個精心設計撰寫的五年計畫。

that isn't just a kind of campaign promise.

它不是用嘴巴說一說的競選承諾；

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

這些計畫的執行， 悠關市長的升遷或開除，

And so it's really deadly serious.

所以確實事關重大。

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

這和碳有關，和健康和工作有關，

and with overall economic strength.

也和整體經濟力有關。

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

結果就是，現今中國

有 42 萬輛電動巴士。

America has less than 1,000.

美國不到一千輛。

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

還有什麼樣的國家計畫 是你很樂見的嗎？

HH: So this is a global effort,

哈：這要全球一起努力， 但並非人人都會用同樣的做法，

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

or should do the same thing.

也不應該用同樣的做法。

Let me start with Norway.

讓我從挪威談起。

A country that happens to be brilliant at offshore oil,

該國剛好在開採離岸石油方面 有很先進的技術，

but also understands the consequences of burning more oil.

但也了解燃燒更多石油的後果。

They realized they could deploy their skills

他們知道如何將開採離岸石油的技術

from their offshore oil development into offshore wind.

運用於開發離岸風力。

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

將風力發動機放在海上不簡單。

The ocean, the winds are much stronger,

在海上，風力會強很多，

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

且風力不僅更強，也更持續， 它也就能完美地穩定供電。

So it balances the grid beautifully.

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

但這種深海工程十分困難，

Norway's good at it.

挪威很擅長，所以就交給他們吧。

So let them take that on.

JD: Are they taking it on?

約：他們做了嗎？ 哈：有。是的，很棒。

HH: They are actually.

Yeah. It's pretty brilliant.

Another example: India.

另一個例子：印度。

There are hundreds of millions of people in India

印度有數億人還無法取得電力。

that don’t have access to electricity.

With the advances in solar and advances in batteries,

隨著太陽能和電池的進展，

他們不需要在沒有電網的 村落設置電網，

there's no reason they have to build the grid

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

可以跳過那個骯髒的步驟，

Skip the steps.

Skip the dirty steps. Leapfrog to clean.

直接跳到乾淨能源。

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

但依我所見，這要用政策來促成。

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

你剛才的意思是我們需要強大的觸媒，

在研發上的觸媒， 還有普及化的觸媒。

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

普及是種創新， 因為普及能把價格壓低。

Deployment is innovation because deployment drives prices down.

The right policy can turn things around,

對的政策能逆轉情勢，

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

且我們已經在電力產業看到。

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

所以電力的管理者要求 更乾淨的電力來源：

more renewables, less coal, less natural gas.

更多再生能源、 較少燃煤、較少天然氣。

And it's working.

這是可行的，而且還運作得相當不錯。

It's working pretty brilliantly, actually.

But it's not enough.

但那並不夠。

So the German government recognized the possibility

德國政府知道有可能 將乾淨能源的價格壓低。

of driving down the price of clean energy.

And so they put in orders on the books.

所以他們先做好採購計畫；

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

在太陽能發展早期， 他們同意以較高價錢採購，

presuming the price would drop.

推測後續價格會下降。

They created the demand signal using policy.

他們用政策發出需求訊號。

The Chinese created a supply signal, also using policy.

【「我們要買」】

中國也使用政策來發出供給訊號。 【「我們要生產」】

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

他們認定太陽能是 他們未來經濟策略的一部分。

So you had this unwritten agreement between the two countries,

所以這兩國間有不成文的協議，

一方購買很多，另一方生產很多，

one buying a lot, the other producing a lot,

這種做法將價格降低八成。

that helped drive the price down 80 percent.

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

我們應該把這種做法應用到 全世界至少十幾項技術上。

around the world.

We need policy as the magic sauce

我們需要政策來引導

to go through those four sectors in the biggest countries,

最大國的這四大經濟活動， 甚至推及所有國家。

in all countries.

And one of the things that animates me

而讓我感到很受鼓舞的其中一點，

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

就是這需要關心氣候變遷的人，

which should be everybody,

應該也就是所有人，

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

他們必須將他們的精力 用在重要的政策上，

with the decision-makers who matter.

影響重要的決策者。

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

如果你不知道 電網脫碳的決策者是誰，

to decarbonize the grid,

or to produce electric vehicles in the policy world,

或在政策圈中生產 電動車的決策者是誰，

you're really not in the game.

那你還在狀況外。

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

約：哈爾，你是政策專家。

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

我知道這一點是因為 我讀過你的書——

HH: Thanks, John.

哈：謝謝。 約：《設計氣候解決方案》。

JD: Designing Climate Solutions.

怎樣的政策才是好政策？

What makes for good policy?

HH: There are some secrets here,

哈：若想解決氣候變遷的問題， 那是需要祕訣的，

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

讓我告訴你兩個祕訣。

Let me give you two of the secrets.

First, you have to go where the tons are.

第一、到量最多的地方。 約：跟著「量」走。

JD: Follow the tons.

HH: Follow the tons.

哈：跟著「量」走。 這個想法很明確。

And this is such an obvious idea,

但驚人的是，好多政策 都沒有搔到癢處。

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

我稱之為綠色塗料。

I call it green paint.

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

我們不需要綠色外表。 我們需要綠色本質。

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

第二、

設定了政策之後， 要有持續的進步的堅持。

So what does that mean?

那是什麼意思？

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

1978 年，傑瑞布朗 是加州史上最年輕的州長，

and he implemented a thermal building code,

他導入了一種建築保溫規範，

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

也就是說，蓋房子時， 就必須要有隔熱的設計。

Pretty simple idea.

很簡單的想法。

But he put a trick into that law.

但他在這條法律上加了點小招數。

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

他說，每三年，這規定就會更嚴格，

所以會不斷地更嚴格。

And how do you know how much tighter?

那會有多嚴格？

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

所有能用節能省下的錢買的耗能設施

都會納入該規定。

So in the intervening years, we got better insulation,

所以在幾年間，

我們有更佳的保溫工程、更佳的窗戶、

better windows, better furnaces,

更佳的暖爐、更佳的屋頂。

better roofing.

Today, a new California building

現今，新的加州建築所用的能源

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

比沒有被規範的舊建築少八成。

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

傑瑞布朗運用他在立法上游移的空間 起草了那個政策，

that produces fruits forever.

從此加州便一直受益。

JD: He got the words right.

約：他做對了。

HH: He got the words right. Continuous improvement.

哈：他做對了，持續改善。

有個反例，我們也能從中學習。

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

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

你我這個年齡的人 還記得第一次石油禁運，

and the energy crisis that caused

以及因此發生的能源危機 所造成的不景氣和通貨膨脹。

with stagnation and inflation at the same time.

Gerald Ford was president.

當時的總統傑拉德福特了解到

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

如果能把新車的燃料效率加倍，

就能把它們的能源用量減半。

we could cut in half their energy use.

So he signed a law to double the fuel efficiency

所以，他簽署了法律，

要求美國新販售的車輛 要將燃料效率加倍。

of new vehicles sold in America,

from 13 miles per gallon, absolutely pathetic,

從低得可憐的每加侖 13 哩

to 26 miles per gallon.

變成每加侖 26 哩。

JD: That's big.

約：那很多。

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

哈：以現在的標準來看是低得可憐， 但在當時算很多吧？

加倍耶。

It was doubling.

但，因為設定了數字目標，

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

我們在這個水平上維持了 25 年。

So imagine if instead he said

想像一下，如果他改說

fuel efficiency will increase at four percent a year forever.

燃料效率每年都要增加 4%， 會有什麼結果？

JD: So Hal, goals are great things.

約：所以，哈爾，有目標是好事，

How do you find the policymakers that set these goals?

但要如何找到這些目標的政策制訂者？

And then how do you influence them?

你要如何影響他們？

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

哈：那可能是所有問題中最重要的。

If we have a lot of concern about climate change,

如果我們很關心氣候變遷，

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

沒有把目標設定好，動力就會消失。

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

只會偶然在新聞頭條 看到遊行抗議的消息。

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

那樣是無法完成什麼的。

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

在每個國家的各種經濟活動 都有一名決策者。

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

且通常不是參議員或總統。

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

通常是空氣品質管理單位 或者公用事業委員。

These are the people

這些人是經濟體背後控制能源的關鍵。

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

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

他們可以決定我們是否能取得 越來越乾淨的能源，

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

或能源效率越來越高的 建築、汽車等等。

and so forth.

約：在像美國這樣的經濟體中， 有多少像這樣的人存在？

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

HH: Electric utilities are monopolies,

哈：電力是獨佔事業， 由公用事業委員來管理，

and so they're regulated by utilities commissions.

Otherwise they'd jack up the price too high.

要不然，它們會把價格抬得太高。

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

每個州都有一個公用事業委員會。

These commissions typically have five members.

這些委員會通常會有五名委員。

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

所以在美國約有兩百五十個人

控制我們電網的未來。

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

當中沒有參議員或州長。 這是委派任命的職務。

They're appointed positions.

JD: How much carbon do they control?

約：他們控制的碳有多少？ 哈：經濟體中四成的碳。

HH: 40 percent of the carbon in the economy.

約：哇，兩百五十人。

JD: Wow. 250 people.

HH: 250 individuals.

哈：兩百五十個人。

Now, you can narrow that down even more.

還可以再把名單縮小。

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

我們來看最大的三十州， 因為重點就是「量」，對吧？

JD: Yeah.

HH: You're now down to 150 individuals.

哈：現在就只剩下一百五十個人。

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

如果決議的得票數需要達五分之三，

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

那就是由九十個人來控制 我們經濟體中近半的排碳量。

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

要如何確保這九十個人 能投票給乾淨能源電網？

They have a quasi-judicial process.

他們有個類似法院的流程。

They hold hearings.

他們會舉辦聽證會，會取得證據。

They take evidence.

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

他們會考慮在法律的框架中

允許做什麼，

And then they make a decision.

然後做出決策。

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

他們必須要考量 人類健康、經濟、可靠度，

And they have to look at greenhouse gases.

還必須要考量溫室氣體。

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

約：你希望看到怎樣的突破？

or an innovation you’re particularly excited about?

或者怎樣的創新 會讓你感到特別興奮？

HH: I'm keen on green hydrogen.

哈：我很熱衷綠氫。

但我們需要把電解的成本降低，

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

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

比起純電力，綠氫永遠都會比較貴。

在熱力學上這點是絕對不變的。

That's a thermodynamic certainty.

But once you have hydrogen,

但，一旦有了氫，

you can reform it with other chemicals into liquid fuels,

就可以把用其他化學物質 將它轉變為液態燃料，

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

比如飛機、長程卡車、 船艦用的合成柴油，

You can use it to make fertilizers.

也可以用它來製造肥料。

And we can rethink the basics of chemistry.

我們能重新思考燃料的化學。

Chemistry's built on hydrocarbons,

碳氫化合物是燃料的化學基礎，

and we need to build it on carbohydrates instead.

我們必須要把它改成 以碳水化合物為基礎；

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

不同類型的分子，但並非不可能。

I guess the other thing that’s fascinating to me

我想，我感興趣的另一樣東西是

is this term "stranded investment."

「投資擱淺」這個詞。

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

如果現今你在世界上幾乎任何地方

擁有一座燃煤發電廠或煤礦，

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

你的錢就被套住了，拿不回來，

You can't get it back.

Because they're uneconomic.

因為它有經濟效應。

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

我們分析了美國每一座 燃煤電廠的經濟效應，

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

當中如果有 75% 直接撤掉，

and replace them with a brand new wind or solar farm

改成全新的風力或太陽能農場，

than just pay the operating costs of that coal plant.

還比讓燃煤電廠 持續營運的成本更划算。

So what's going to get stranded next?

下一個會讓資金擱淺的是什麼？ 這是個很重要的問題。

This is an important question.

我認為下一個是天然氣。

I think natural gas is next.

It's already skidding along at low prices.

它的價格已經急遽下跌。

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

我認為現在還把大量的錢 投入到天然氣領域

或燃氣渦輪機的人， 將來一定會後悔這麼做。

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

John, what are some of the innovations or breakthroughs

約翰，哪些創新或突破 特別讓你感到興奮？

that you’re especially excited about?

約：有個讓我很興奮的發展 來自我的朋友和偶像艾爾高爾，

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

who has the vision and is working with entrepreneurs,

他有遠見，且正在和企業家合作，

that by integrating data can produce,

透過資料整合，

他們可以即時估算

for every place on the planet,

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

世界上任何一個地方的碳排放量。

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

要知道，我所受的訓練 是要去測量重要的東西。

HH: Yes you do.

哈：是的。

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

約：如果有一種即時的東西， 像 Google Earth 一樣，

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

我們可以放大去看個別的工廠、

油田，或沃爾瑪賣場的碳排放，

or Walmart stores,

I think that could really change the game.

我認為那真的能夠改變局勢。

I'm also a believer in carbon accounting.

我也相信碳盤查。

And so I've seen entrepreneurs who are making systems

我曾經見過企業家設計出的系統

that will allow not just the owners

可以讓企業或組織的老闆

but all the employees of an enterprise or organization

以及所有員工

to see what's in their carbon supply chain.

都能看見他們供應鏈中碳排放的情況。

HH: Yup. Yup.

哈：是的。

JD: I'd love to see legislation

約：我會很樂見法律規定

that required the OMB score every piece of legislation

要求管理與預算局將碳衝擊

納入到所有的立法計分當中。

for its carbon impact.

HH: Yes.

哈：是的。

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

約：如果我們是玩真的， 就要測量重要的指標，

measure what really matters.

真正重要的指標。

HH: Yup. Yup.

約：我們來談談巴黎和巴黎協定，

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

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

因為有些人說，有些國家的步調超前，

but others are not,

有些國家步調慢，

and that the agenda is not aggressive enough.

且議程不夠積極，

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

無法讓我們達成必要的目標。

What is your view of the Paris Accords?

你對巴黎協定的看法如何？

HH: The Paris Accords are quite interesting animals.

哈：巴黎協定是很有趣的東西。

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

它不是國家的承諾， 也不是國際的承諾。

JD: They're not binding.

約、哈：它沒有約束力。

HH: They're not binding.

They're individually determined national contributions.

它設定了各國分別的貢獻值。

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

那是巴黎協定中的專用術語。

JD: So what does that mean?

約：那是什麼意思？

HH: So that means Europe says:

哈：舉例來說，歐洲說： 我們要在 2030 年

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

把碳排放量減為 1990 年的 60%。

than we did in 1990, for example.

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

如果他們沒有達成目標， 也不會有任何後果。

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

如果他們超越了目標， 也不會有任何後果。

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

然而，那並不表示巴黎協定不重要，

它相當重要。

They're really important.

因為這個協定促進了

Because they set up, I would call it,

向上的競爭而非向下的競爭。

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

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

他們創造了一種 讓大家企圖越做越好的氛圍。

They created transparency in how people are doing

他們建立了透明度，

讓大家都公開自己的碳排放表現。

in terms of their carbon emissions.

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

有些國家非常認真看待這些承諾，

and including the European Union and China on that list.

包括歐盟和中國在內。

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

約：讓我就此再深入一點， 我們真正需要的……

HH: Yup.

哈：是的。

is we need a plan.

約：我們需要一個計畫。

HH: So elaborate.

哈：請說明。

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

約：我認為我們現在 只有目標，沒有計畫。

And I think a plan

我認為，計畫要包含一組二十個

would be a set of 20 focused precision policy efforts,

分別針對二十個最大排放國，

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

在適當的場合所制定的

in the right venues, for these 20 largest nations,

焦點明確的精準政策，

in the four sectors of their economy.

並囊括四個最大的經濟區塊。

And these precision campaigns would be well-funded,

要發起這些精準政策的制定，

資金要充足，焦點要明確，

they'd be well-focused,

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

要有一個很棒的創辦人／ 執行長／領導人，

an amazing staff of people,

要有出色的成員，

an accountable set of objectives and key results,

要有一組責任分明的目標和預期成果，

and be on a timeline.

且要遵守預計時程，

We would measure their progress, quarter by quarter.

要能夠每季測量計畫的進展。

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

那就會讓我覺得有望 能在 2030 年達到目標。

How about you?

你呢？

HH: Let me add on a couple of characteristics

哈：讓我針對你剛才說的，

再補充幾點。

to exactly what you just said.

And that is you need to have a deep understanding

那就是，你必須要 深入了解決策者是誰，

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

理想狀況下，要知道是哪個人， 一定要知道是哪個職務。

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

並確切了解他們做此決策的 動機或阻礙是什麼，

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

這麼一來你才能在決策的時刻 傾全力影響決策者。

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

對於環境或氣候有所關心是一回事。

It's quite another to focus that concern

把關心的焦點放在地球上 最重要的決策上，

on the most important decisions on the planet.

又是另一回事了。

那就是我們需要做的。

And that's what we need to do.

I love this idea.

我喜歡這個想法。

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

約：好，所以要把焦點 放在決策者身上，

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

但我認為有些個人行動 是我們應該也必須要去做的。

We've got to amplify your voice

個人必須把你的聲音放大，

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

這樣你就能組織、發動、勸服

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

你的公司、你的鄰居、年輕人

——我認為年輕人有很強大的聲音——

and friends.

還有朋友。

HH: Yup.

JD: You need to vote.

約：你得去投票。

HH: Yup.

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

約：你得把投票視為悠關你的生死。

So Hal, what does this all add up to?

哈爾，總結是什麼？

What's the takeaway?

關鍵的訊息是什麼？

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

哈：我是樂觀主義者， 約翰，我見過這種可能性。

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

我見過國家決定去做偉大的事，

they can do great things.

他們也做得到。

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

想想美國的鄉村電氣化 或者我們建造的洲際公路系統。

那些都是能改變國家的大計畫。

Those are huge projects that transformed the country.

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

我們為了二次大戰做的準備：

我們在四年內建造了三十萬架飛機。

So if we decide to do something,

如果我們決定要做某件事，

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

或者當德國、中國、印度

或其他國家決定要做某件事，

other countries,

they can get it done.

它們都能做到。

But if this is sort of piffling around the edges,

但如果只是做個樣子，

we won't get there.

我們是辦不到的。

What do you think? Are you optimistic?

你認為呢？你樂觀嗎？

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

約：對此議題的立場，我可能不樂觀，

但我抱持希望。

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

我真心認為關鍵的問題是：

我們能否做到我們必須要做的事，

at speed and at scale?

且速度要快，規模要大？

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

好消息是，目前， 拯救地球比毀滅地球更便宜。

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

壞消息是，我們快要沒時間了。