Alex Steffen: The shareable future of cities

譯者: Xiujian Xie 審譯者: Resa CC

Climate change is already a heavy topic,

全球氣候變遷已是個沉重的話題，

and it's getting heavier

並有愈加沉重之勢，

because we're understanding

因為我們開始意識到

that we need to do more than we are.

我們現在所做的努力還遠遠不夠。

We're understanding, in fact,

事實上，我們開始意識到

that those of us who live in the developed world

生活在發達國家的我們

need to be really pushing towards eliminating our emissions.

需要努力減少廢氣排放。

That's, to put it mildly, not what's on the table now.

而这想法，說得婉轉些，还未被列入議程。

And it tends to feel a little overwhelming

當我們著眼於現今的實際面

when we look at what is there in reality today

和當前的艱巨難題，

and the magnitude of the problem that we face.

心头便被不安和彷徨籠罩。

And when we have overwhelming problems in front of us,

而當我們面對問題不知所措時

we tend to seek simple answers.

就容易「頭痛醫頭，腳痛醫腳」。

And I think this is what we've done with climate change.

我認為我們處理氣候變化的方式就是這樣。

We look at where the emissions are coming from --

我們環顧四周尋找廢氣排放的源頭 ——

they're coming out of our tailpipes and smokestacks and so forth,

它們從排氣管中來，從工廠煙囪里來……

and we say, okay, well the problem is

然後我們就斷言，好了，病灶發現嘍

that they're coming out of fossil fuels that we're burning,

廢氣就來自那些礦物燃料，

so therefore, the answer must be

所以呢，要解決這個問題，

to replace those fossil fuels with clean sources of energy.

就把那些礦物燃料替換成清潔能源好了。

And while, of course, we do need clean energy,

而此時，當然啦，我們又確實需要綠色能源，

I would put to you that it's possible

但我想告訴你們，

that by looking at climate change

若單是認為使用綠色能源

as a clean energy generation problem,

便能解決氣候變遷的問題，

we're in fact setting ourselves up

我們是在作繭自縛，

not to solve it.

別指望解決問題。

And the reason why

因為

is that we live on a planet

我們寄居的這個星球

that is rapidly urbanizing.

其都市化進程相當迅猛。

That shouldn't be news to any of us.

或許這對大家來說是老調重彈。

However, it's hard sometimes

但有時候，大家對於

to remember the extent of that urbanization.

都市化所能達到的程度沒有概念。

By mid-century,

再過50年，

we're going to have about eight billion -- perhaps more -- people

將有大約80億人口——也許更多——

living in cities or within a day's travel of one.

生活在城市或者與城市相隔不出一天車程的地方。

We will be an overwhelmingly urban species.

屆時我們將成為一個難以被駕馭的「城市兵團」。

In order to provide

為了

the kind of energy that it would take

讓那八十億人的日子

for eight billion people living in cities

過得

that are even somewhat like the cities

有那麼丁點兒

that those of us in the global North live in today,

像當今北半球城里人的影子，

we would have to generate

我們都必須生產

an absolutely astonishing amount of energy.

數量十分驚人的能源。

It may be possible

而且很可能

that we are not even able

我們無法製造出

to build that much clean energy.

那樣多的清潔能源。

So if we're seriously talking about tackling climate change

因此如果我們真的希望在城市化進程中

on an urbanizing planet,

探討應對大氣變遷的方案的話，

we need to look somewhere else for the solution.

我們需要改變視角，另闢蹊徑。

The solution, in fact, may be closer to hand than we think,

而那個我們夢寐以求的方案，可能比我們想像的要來得容易。

because all of those cities we're building

因為那些處於雛形階段的城市

are opportunities.

都是我們的機會。

Every city determines to a very large extent

每一個城市在很大程度上

the amount of energy used by its inhabitants.

都決定了其居民所消耗的能源量。

We tend to think of energy use as a behavioral thing --

我們習慣性地認為自己可以主觀控制能源的消耗——

I choose to turn this light switch on --

譬如「是我想把這燈打開」——

but really, enormous amounts of our energy use

但事實上，有很大一部份能源的消耗

are predestined

是由

by the kinds of communities and cities that we live in.

我們居住的社區、城市決定的。

I won't show you very many graphs today,

我今天不打算向你們展示很多圖表，

but if I can just focus on this one for a moment,

但面前的這一張值得大家關注，

it really tells us a lot of what we need to know --

圖中有一些我們應該瞭解的訊息——

which is, quite simply,

很明顯，

that if you look, for example, at transportation,

就拿圖表上「交通工具」——

a major category of climate emissions,

即大氣廢物的主要排放源——來說，

there is a direct relationship

一個城市

between how dense a city is

其人口、建施的密度

and the amount of climate emissions

與其居民製造的排放物之間

that its residents spew out into the air.

有著直接聯繫。

And the correlation, of course,

這關聯，從圖上可以看出，

is that denser places tend to have lower emissions --

即是：密度越大，其排放物反而愈少——

which isn't really all that difficult to figure out, if you think about it.

仔細想想，這其實也不難理解。

Basically,

平時生活中，

we substitute, in our lives,

我們為得到自己想要的東西

access to the things we want.

而驅車數里。

We go out there and we hop in our cars

一出門我們就坐上車，

and we drive from place to place.

穿梭于一個又一個地點間。

And we're basically using mobility to get the access we need.

基本上，我們做什麽都離不開車。

But when we live in a denser community,

但倘若我們居住在一個較密集的社區，

suddenly what we find, of course,

突然間，我們會發現，

is that the things we need are close by.

那些我們需要的東西近在咫尺。

And since the most sustainable trip

而且最划算的旅行

is the one that you never had to make in the first place,

就是「呆在原地打轉兒」，

suddenly our lives become instantly more sustainable.

突然間，我們會發現日子過得更加經濟划算了。

And it is possible, of course,

而當然了，

to increase the density of the communities around us.

提高社區的密度是完全有可能的。

Some places are doing this with new eco districts,

一些地方已經開始試行生態區了，

developing whole new sustainable neighborhoods,

他們正在那裡打造一種全新的可持續發展的社區模式，

which is nice work if you can get it,

如果你能理解，便知道這樣做的好處。

but most of the time, what we're talking about is, in fact,

但大多數時候，我們所討論的是，

reweaving the urban fabric that we already have.

如何重新雕琢城市的肌理。

So we're talking about things like infill development:

因此我們所關注的是諸如「填充式開發」這類問題：

really sharp little changes

這意味著我們不會對

to where we have buildings, where we're developing.

現有的房屋和正在開發中的地段做大幅度改動。

Urban retrofitting:

對城市進行翻新：

creating different sorts of spaces and uses

即在現有的條件下

out of places that are already there.

再額外開發一些多功能的空間。

Increasingly, we're realizing

越來越多的人開始認識到

that we don't even need to densify an entire city.

我們沒必要將城市每一個角落的密度都加大。

What we need instead is an average density

我們需要做的只是將整座城市的

that rises to a level

平均密度提升到一個水平

where we don't drive as much and so on.

從而使我們不必像現在這樣依賴汽車。

And that can be done

而要實現以上的目標

by raising the density in very specific spots a whole lot.

只需要大幅度提升某一些特定場所的密度即可。

So you can think of it as tent poles

你可以把這想像成

that actually raise the density of the entire city.

是一些帳篷杆將整個城市的密度撐高了。

And we find that when we do that,

而當我們真的這樣做時，

we can, in fact, have a few places that are really hyper-dense

我們就會發現，其實在一個

within a wider fabric of places

相較寬鬆、令人舒服的大環境中，

that are perhaps a little more comfortable

哪怕只有少部份具有高密度的空間，

and achieve the same results.

我們也可以獲得相同的成效。

Now we may find that there are places that are really, really dense

但現在我們可能會發現有些空間的密度已經相當高了，

and still hold onto their cars,

但人們還是沒有擯棄汽車，

but the reality is that, by and large,

其實，總的來說，情況是這樣的，

what we see when we get a lot of people together with the right conditions

當我們在適宜的條件下將人口分佈安排得更加緊湊時，

is a threshold effect,

接下來便會產生「門檻效應(threshold effect)」，

where people simply stop driving as much,

這時人們一開始是變得「不那麼依賴車」，

and increasingly, more and more people,

爾後，當越來越多的人

if they're surrounded by places that make them feel at home,

被有著家一般感覺的環境所包圍時，

give up their cars altogether.

他們就會「戒掉」汽車。

And this is a huge, huge energy savings,

而這將節約大量的能源。

because what comes out of our tailpipe

因為從我們的尾氣管中所排放出的

is really just the beginning of the story

還僅僅是汽車所產生的

with climate emissions from cars.

大氣污染物的一小部份。

We have the manufacture of the car, the disposal of the car,

我們還必須處理汽車的生產和報廢，

all of the parking and freeways and so on.

大量的停車場和高速公路等等。

When you can get rid of all of those

而當一些人完全不依賴這些事物時，

because somebody doesn't use any of them really,

我們就可以擺脫它們的影響，

you find that you can actually cut transportation emissions

這時你將發現，你已經將交通工具產生的污染物

as much as 90 percent.

減少了90%

And people are embracing this.

並且，人們很高興能遠離汽車。

All around the world, we're seeing more and more people embrace this walkshed life.

我們可以看到，全世界越來越多的人開始崇尚步行生活。

People are saying that it's moving from the idea of the dream home

人們都說，那感覺相當于從小小理想之家

to the dream neighborhood.

搬到到了一個大的理想社區

And when you layer that over

若將理想之家置入理想社區

with the kind of ubiquitous communications that we're starting to see,

加上便捷的交通網絡，

what you find is, in fact,

你就會發現，實際上，

even more access suffused into spaces.

我們能獲得的東西變多了。

Some of it's transportation access.

而其中一部份就是新的交通方式和路线。

This is a Mapnificent map that shows me, in this case,

這是一張Mapnificent網路地圖，它指示出(譯者注：Mapnificent為應用軟體)

how far I can get from my home in 30 minutes

從我家出發，借助於公共交通工具，

using public transportation.

30分鐘之內我能抵達的地方。

Some of it is about walking. It's not all perfect yet.

當然其中有些地方是按步行來算的。這軟體尚未臻完美。

This is Google Walking Maps.

這張是來自「Google 步行地圖( Google Walking Maps)」。

I asked how to do the greater Ridgeway,

我用它來查尋到Great Ridgeway的路線，

and it told me to go via Guernsey.

而它告訴我應該從格恩西島(Guernsey)走。

It did tell me that this route

它還告訴我這條路線

maybe missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths, though.

可能沒有人行道。

(Laughter)

(笑)

But the technologies are getting better,

但科技總在進步，

and we're starting to really kind of crowdsource this navigation.

我們開始擴充導航系統的資料

And as we just heard earlier,

而正如我們早先知道的，

of course, we're also learning how to put information on dumb objects.

我們學著在「不會說話的東西」上標注信息。

Things that don't have any wiring in them at all,

對沒有任何電線嵌套的東西

we're learning how to include

我們也學著將之納入

in these systems of notation and navigation.

符號和導航的系統。

Part of what we're finding with this

這也讓我們發現，

is that what we thought

我們所認為的

was the major point

生產與消耗

of manufacturing and consumption,

的重點

which is to get a bunch of stuff,

只是『得到一堆的東西』，

is not, in fact,

而不是，

how we really live best in dense environments.

如何能讓我們在密集環境中獲得最優質的生活。

What we're finding is that what we want

我們還發現，其實我們一直想要得到的

is access to the capacities of things.

也只是能物盡其用而已。

My favorite example is a drill. Who here owns a drill, a home power drill?

我最喜歡拿鑽孔機為例。在座的觀眾誰有家用式鑽孔機啊?

Okay. I do too.

好，我也有一台。

The average home power drill is used somewhere between six and 20 minutes

在家用鑽孔機的一生中，其平均被使用的時間

in its entire lifetime,

是6到20分鐘，

depending on who you ask.

具體多久則因人而異。

And so what we do is we buy these drills

因此我們所做的是將這些

that have a potential capacity of thousands of hours of drill time,

本可以工作上千個小時的鑽孔機回家，

use them once or twice to put a hole in the wall and let them sit.

爾後只用來打一兩個洞，就置之不理了。

Our cities, I would put to you,

而我們的城市，我可以告訴你們，

are stockpiles of these surplus capacities.

就儲滿了諸如此類的剩餘能量。

And while we could try and figure out

而當我們嘗試著

new ways to use those capacities --

開發鑽孔機的新功能時——

such as cooking or making ice sculptures

譬如說用來炒菜，用來雕冰

or even a mafia hit --

或者是用來做兇器——

what we probably will find

我們可能會發現

is that, in fact, turning those products into services

其實，更為聰明的辦法是

that we have access to when we want them,

將這些產品的功能多元化，

is a far smarter way to go.

以便我們需要的時候使用。

And in fact, even space itself is turning into a service.

而事實上，就算是單一空間本身也是一個多功能體。

We're finding that people can share the same spaces,

我們發現人們可以共享同一個空間，

do stuff with vacant space.

可以在空置的地方做任何事情。

Buildings are becoming bundles of services.

建築已經開始具有多種功能了。

So we have new designs

因此我們的新設計

that are helping us take mechanical things that we used to spend energy on --

旨在將那些曾經需要消耗人為能源的機械工作——

like heating, cooling etc. --

諸如加熱，冷卻等等——

and turn them into things that we avoid spending energy on.

轉化為不需要消耗人為能源的工作。

So we light our buildings with daylight.

這樣一來，我們得以用日光照明。

We cool them with breezes. We heat them with sunshine.

以自然風來降溫，以太陽能來加熱。

In fact, when we use all these things,

而當我們採用這些形式的能源時，

what we've found is that, in some cases,

就會發現，在某些情況下，

energy use in a building can drop as much as 90 percent.

一幢建築物所消耗的人為能源能降低90%。

Which brings on another threshold effect

這就帶來下一個「門檻效應(threshold effect)」

I like to call furnace dumping,

我也把它叫做「火爐再見(furnace dumping)」。

which is, quite simply,

這理解起來很簡單，

if you have a building that doesn't need to be heated with a furnace,

就是如果你的屋子不需要爐子來提供熱能的話，

you save a whole bunch of money up front.

你就相當于省了一大筆錢。

These things actually become cheaper to build

而就算將這筆錢用在自然能源的採集上，

than the alternatives.

那也還是有富餘。

Now when we look at being able

那麼現在我們已經可以

to slash our product use, slash our transportation use,

大幅度削減物品消耗，削減交通工具的使用頻率，

slash our building energy use,

削減建築物能源的消耗量，

all of that is great, but it still leaves something behind.

能做到這樣確實很棒，但仍有一些要素被遺漏了。

And if we're going to really, truly become sustainable cities,

而倘若我們真想讓城市可持續發展，

we need to think a little differently.

我們就需要轉換一下思維。

This is one way to do it.

這裡展示的便是其中一種模式。

This is Vancouver's propaganda about how green a city they are.

這是溫哥華(Vancouver)為其綠色城市所做的宣傳。

And certainly lots of people have taken to heart

而顯然，很多人都認為

this idea that a sustainable city is covered in greenery.

一個可持續發展的城市是披滿了綠色植物的。

So we have visions like this.

由此我們就看到了這樣的景象。

We have visions like this. We have visions like this.

這樣的景象，還有

Now all of these are fine projects,

這樣的景象。當然這都是些不錯的企劃，

but they really have missed an essential point,

但他們真的忽略了一個要點。

which is it's not about the leaves above,

那即是不管高層的綠化做得多麼好，

it's about the systems below.

真正的影響則來自下面的設施。

Do they, for instance, capture rainwater

譬如說，是否收集雨水

so that we can reduce water use?

以便節約水資源？

Water is energy intensive.

水的消耗量可謂巨大。

Do they, perhaps, include green infrastructure,

是否包含環保基礎建設，

so that we can take runoff

可讓我們將徑流

and water that's going out of our houses

與生活用水進行

and clean it and filter it

淨化並過濾

and grow urban street trees?

和澆灌街邊樹木?

Do they connect us back to the ecosystems around us

這些設施能否維繫我們與周圍的生態系統，

by, for example, connecting us to rivers

譬如，讓我們容易接近川流

and allowing for restoration?

並容許河川復育嗎?

Do they allow for pollination,

這些工程是否考慮到了『授粉』，

pollinator pathways

是否有專門之途徑

that bees and butterflies and such can come back into our cities?

將傳播花粉的昆蟲引進我們的城市?

Do they even take the very waste matter

工程中有沒有將那些廢棄物，

that we have from food and fiber and so forth,

那些來自食物和纖維等物品的廢棄物，

and turn it back into soil

收集起來并回歸土壤，

and sequester carbon --

在城市運轉當中，

take carbon out of the air

有沒有進行固碳——

in the process of using our cities?

以減少大氣中碳元素的含量？

I would submit to you that all of these things are not only possible,

我想告訴大家，以上所說的都不是紙上談兵，

they're being done right now,

它們現在正被落實中，

and that it's a darn good thing.

這是再好不過了。

Because right now, our economy by and large

因為此時，大體來看我們的經濟運作方式

operates as Paul Hawken said,

就像保羅•霍肯(Paul Hawken)說的那樣，

"by stealing the future, selling it in the present

「竊取未來，揮霍於今日

and calling it GDP."

此即國內生產毛額(GDP)。」

And if we have another eight billion

而如果再增加80億

or seven billion,

或者70億，

or six billion, even, people,

甚至哪怕只是60億人口

living on a planet where their cities also steal the future,

居住在這樣一個佈滿「竊取未來資源」的城市的星球上，

we're going to run out of future really fast.

未來的資源將很快被我們消耗殆盡。

But if we think differently,

但如果我們將思維轉換一下，

I think that, in fact, we can have cities

我認為，在現實生活中，

that are not only zero emissions,

我們不僅能打造零污染的的城市，

but have unlimited possibilities as well.

而且還將擁有無限的「可能」。

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲)