didn't change by more than 1 degree Celsius.

沒有變化超過1攝氏度。

But then humans started burning fossil fuels,

但後來人類開始燃燒化石燃料。

around here.

在這裡。

Today, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times.

如今，自工業化前時代以來，全球氣溫已經上升了約1攝氏度。

This is what that looks like so far:

這就是目前的樣子。

Storms have gotten more intense,

暴風雪變得更猛烈了。

wildfires are more common,

野火比較常見。

and ancient glaciers are melting faster and faster.

而古冰川的融化速度越來越快。

And that's just one degree of warming.

而這僅僅是升溫了一度。

Without global action, the world is on track to warm at least 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.

如果不採取全球行動，到2100年，世界將至少升高3攝氏度。

This would be catastrophic.

這將是災難性的。

That's why most scientists agree that we need to limit global warming to this range,

所以大多數科學家都認為，我們需要將全球變暖限制在這個範圍內。

between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius.

1.5至2攝氏度之間。

Carbon dioxide, which is emitted when we burn fossil fuels,

二氧化碳，是我們燃燒化石燃料時排放的。

accounts for most of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

佔世界溫室氣體排放的大部分。

It's the main culprit behind climate change.

它是氣候變化的罪魁禍首。

And to limit global warming to the degree that scientists are calling for,

並將全球變暖限制在科學家呼籲的程度。

we have to stop releasing it.

我們必須停止釋放它。

We have to “decarbonize.”

我們必須 "去碳化"。

The US doesn't currently emit the most carbon dioxide of any country.

美國目前並不是所有國家中二氧化碳排放量最多的國家。

But as one of the oldest industrial powers, it's emitted more carbon dioxide in total

但作為最古老的工業大國之一，它排放的二氧化碳總量更多。

than any other country or region.

比任何其他國家或地區。

So America has a big role to play in decarbonizing.

所以美國在低碳化方面有很大的作用。

But how is the US supposed to do that?

但美國該如何做呢？

And is it actually possible?

而實際上是否可能呢？

If you want to get halfway there by 2030, you have to start now.

如果你想在2030年達到一半的目標，你必須現在就開始。

Now. Going fast.

現在就去進展很快

There is literally zero more time to waste.

浪費的時間簡直為零。

Dave writes about energy and climate for Vox.

戴夫為Vox撰寫關於能源和氣候的文章。

And he says the 2020 US election comes with fairly clear stakes.

而他表示，2020年美國大選的利害關係相當明確。

If Trump is reelected, that's it. Like there's no chance for 1.5.

如果特朗普連任，那就。就像1.5的機會都沒有。

And probably all chances for 2 degrees are gone.

而且可能2度的機會都沒有了。

“The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.”

"美國將退出巴黎氣候協定"

“...open up the coal mines.”

"... ...打開煤礦。"

“...new offshore oil and gas leasing program.”

"...新的近海石油和天然氣租賃計劃。"

President Trump doesn't have a climate policy.

特朗普總統沒有氣候政策。

And his reelection will most likely continue policies designed to boost the fossil fuel industry.

而他的連任很可能會延續旨在促進化石燃料產業發展的政策。

They'd increase carbon emissions instead of decreasing them.

他們會增加碳排放而不是減少碳排放。

And the effects would be felt globally.

而且會在全球範圍內產生影響。

You just can't have the world's second biggest economy opting out,

你就是不能讓世界第二大經濟體選擇退出。

moving kin the opposite direction, and expect the world to get there.

向著相反的方向前進，並期望世界能到達那裡。

The other major candidate in the election does have a plan to address climate change.

選舉中的另一位主要候選人確實有應對氣候變化的計劃。

And this part of it in particular is ambitious:

而這部分尤其是雄心勃勃。

Biden has been convinced and pushed to the point that he's got a great climate plan.

拜登已經被說服了，被推到了他有一個偉大的氣候計劃的地步。

What Biden's plan doesn't get into are the details on exactly how the US would actually do that.

拜登的計劃沒有涉及到的是美國究竟會如何做的細節。

But there are people who have thought about what it might look like to decarbonize by 2050.

但也有人思考過到2050年實現低碳化會是什麼樣子。

And to understand that, it helps to get a picture of where America's energy comes from,

而要了解這一點，有助於瞭解美國能源的來源。

and where it goes.

以及它的去向。

[Scream]

[尖叫]

Sorry, my son nearly stepped on a snake.

對不起，我兒子差點踩到一條蛇。

Do you want to say hi?

你想打招呼嗎？

This is Saul Griffith. He's a physicist, and an engineer, but this is how Dave describes him:

這是索爾-格里菲斯，他是個物理學家，也是個工程師。他是個物理學家，也是個工程師，但戴夫是這樣描述他的。

Probably the person who knows more about energy as it's used in the United States

可能是對美國的能源使用情況比較瞭解的人吧

than any other human being.

比其他任何人都要好。

A few years ago, Saul decided to make a model of America's energy use.

幾年前，索爾決定做一個美國能源使用的模型。

He ended up reading basically every available piece of data, from...

他最後閱讀了所有可用的數據，從... ...

...the Energy Information Administration,

...能源資訊管理局。

Department of Transportation,

交通部。

the National Highway Transit Authority,

國家公路運輸局；

the Census Bureau,

人口普查局。

Bureau of Labor Statistics,

勞工統計局。

and NOAA.

和諾阿。

And so we pulled all of those together to build a very comprehensive picture of the US energy economy.

所以我們把所有的這些東西整合在一起，建立了一個非常全面的美國能源經濟的圖景。

That picture of the US energy economy?

那張美國能源經濟的圖片？

It looks like this:

它看起來像這樣。

If you're just looking at the whole thing at once, it just looks like a big pile of spaghetti.

如果你一下子就看完了，就像一大堆麵條。

It's hard to make sense of, but it just traces energy, every unit of energy.

這很難理解，但它只是追蹤能量，每一個組織、部門的能量。

How does it enter the economy? How is it used throughout the economy?

它是如何進入經濟領域的？它在整個經濟中是如何使用的？

This kind of chart is called a Sankey diagram. And it's easier to understand in 3 sections.

這種圖叫桑基圖。而且分為3個部分，比較容易理解。

These columns here on the left are the sources of all the energy used in the US,

左邊這幾欄是美國所有能源的來源。

like natural gas, coal, solar, wind, nuclear, and oil.

如天然氣、煤炭、太陽能、風能、核能和石油。

This column in the middle is what those energy sources get converted into.

中間這一列就是這些能源的轉化。

So a lot of it becomes electricity. Most oil becomes the fuel we use for transportation.

所以很多都變成了電。大部分的石油變成了我們用來運輸的燃料。

And here, you can see how much natural gas energy is being used to generate electricity,

而在這裡，你可以看到有多少天然氣能源被用於發電。

versus being used directly to power things like cooking stoves.

與直接用來給灶具等東西供電。

And over here on the right? This is where all the energy is used,

右邊這裡呢？這裡是所有能源的使用地。

broken down into incredible detail.

細分到不可思議的細節。

Like how much energy is used to light shopping malls in the US.

比如美國的商場照明用了多少能源。

Or how much energy is used by vehicles driven for work.

或者說工作所開的車輛消耗了多少能源。

So you start to get this incredibly detailed picture of all of the interconnections,

所以，你開始得到這個令人難以置信的詳細的圖片 所有的相互連接。

which is really, really important when you do the next exercise:

這是真的，真的很重要，當你做下一個練習。

what happens if we decarbonize?

如果我們脫碳會怎樣？

Remember that carbon emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels. This stuff.

記住，碳排放來自於化石燃料的燃燒。這個東西。

And Saul says that means that to decarbonize, we just need to follow their path.

而索爾說，這就意味著，要想實現低碳化，我們只需要沿著他們的道路走下去。

The first place that leads you is here, with electricity and the energy we use to generate it —

第一個引導你的地方就是這裡，有了電和我們用來發電的能源--。

the majority of which, in the US, comes from two kinds of fossil fuel: natural gas and coal.

在美國，其中大部分來自兩種化石燃料：天然氣和煤炭。

If the US wants to decarbonize, it needs to stop getting electricity this way,

如果美國想實現低碳化，就需要停止通過這種方式獲取電力。

and replace it with other decarbonized energy sources.

並以其他低碳化能源取而代之。

That means coal power plants - gone.

這意味著煤電廠--消失了。

Gas power — gone.

燃氣動力--消失了。

All electricity would come from renewable sources —

所有電力將來自可再生資源--------。

wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass. Or, nuclear energy.

風能、太陽能、地熱能、水能和生物質能。或者，核能。

Decarbonizing the way we get electricity would be a huge investment.

使我們獲取電力的方式脫碳將是一項巨大的投資。

But it would also only eliminate 20% of emissions.

但也只能消除20%的排放。

And that's because electricity and energy are not exactly the same thing.

而這是因為電和能源並不是完全一樣的東西。

That doesn't solve vehicles' emissions.

這並不能解決車輛的排放問題。

It doesn't solve your heating emissions from using natural gas or fuel oil in your basement.

它不能解決您在地下室使用天然氣或燃油的供暖排放問題。

All these other parts of the economy draw their energy directly from fossil fuels.

所有這些經濟的其他部分都直接從化石燃料中獲取能源。

Like transportation: We use oil for fuel.

就像交通。我們用石油做燃料。

And commercial and residential buildings, where we use gas and oil for heat.

而商住樓，我們使用燃氣和燃油供熱。

But Saul says there's a kind of elegant solution to this:

但索爾說有一種優雅的解決方案。

you decarbonize these sectors by switching their energy source

你通過改變這些部門的能源來源來實現脫碳。

from here, to here.

從這裡，到這裡。

Make all of it electric.

讓所有的電。

Because we already have almost all of the technology we need to do it.

因為我們已經擁有了幾乎所有的技術，我們需要做到這一點。

Heat pumps, batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines, nuclear power plants.

熱泵、電池、電動汽車、風力發電機、核電站。

We know that that can work. We know we can do electric cars.

我們知道，這可以工作。我們知道我們可以做電動汽車。

We know we can do electric heat for nearly everything.

我們知道，我們幾乎什麼都可以做電熱。

It's all in the end just about machines, right?

說到底都只是機器的問題，對吧？

We've got a bunch of machines that use fossil fuel energy.

我們有一堆使用化石燃料能源的機器。

We need to replace them with machines that use clean electricity.

我們需要用使用清潔電力的機器來代替它們。

And so it really just comes down to a matter of industrial capacity:

所以，這其實只是一個產業能力的問題。

How fast can you build machines?

你能以多快的速度製造機器？

There are some things we'd have a harder time decarbonizing.

有些事情我們會更難脫碳。

Air travel will rely on fossil fuels until alternative technologies get better.

在替代技術變得更好之前，航空旅行將依賴化石燃料。

And things like steel and concrete are really hard to manufacture without fossil fuels.

而像鋼鐵和混凝土這樣的東西，如果沒有化石燃料，真的很難製造。

But if we decarbonized as much as possible with the technology that we have now,

但如果我們用現在的技術儘可能地去碳化。

it would end most of the US's carbon emissions.

它將結束美國大部分的碳排放。

This chart shows the country's carbon emissions broken down by economic sector.

這張圖顯示了該國按經濟部門劃分的碳排放量。

If electricity, residential, commercial, and transportation were mostly decarbonized,

如果電力、住宅、商業、交通大多實現了低碳化。

you'd have solved a lot of the problem.

你已經解決了很多問題。

All of this would be a huge undertaking. And it needs to happen fast.

所有這些都將是一項巨大的工程。而且需要快速進行。

Saul's research modeled different scenarios

索爾的研究模擬了不同的場景

for the transition from fossil fuel-based machines to electric ones:

為從使用化石燃料的機器過渡到電動機器。

From a market-driven transition, to carbon taxes,

從市場驅動的轉型，到碳稅。

to a much more direct and heavy-handed approach that would replace our machines with

以更直接、更嚴厲的方式來取代我們的機器。

their electric counterparts very quickly.

他們的電動同行很快。

And he found that because we've delayed action for so long,

而他發現，因為我們耽誤了這麼久的行動。

none of these slower approaches will be enough.

這些較慢的方法都是不夠的。

If you went back to 2000 and started then, you could just put like a modest carbon tax in place

如果你回到2000年，從那時開始，你可以把像一個適度的碳稅的地方。

and it would have just eased us down over the course of 30 years or whatever.

而且它只會讓我們在30年的時間裡輕鬆下來，或者是什麼。

But emissions kept rising and rising and rising.

但排放量一直在上升，不斷上升，不斷上升。

So now to get where we need to go, they got to fall off a cliff.

所以現在要想去哪裡，他們就得掉下懸崖。

And that means zero delay.

而這意味著零延遲。

We're just talking about a level of industrial mobilization that none of us alive have seen.

我們說的是我們活著的人都沒有見過的工業動員水準。

It would look like what FDR did to prepare us to prepare the US for war.

這就像FDR為我們做的準備，讓美國做好戰爭準備。

Literally, every single solitary fossil fuel machine that goes out of service

從字面上看，每一個單獨的化石燃料機器，停止使用。

is replaced by a clean energy alternative.

被清潔能源替代。

Every furnace, car, factory, you name it.

每一個爐子，汽車，工廠，你說的。

Nearly everyone is buying an electric vehicle,

幾乎所有人都在購買電動車。

nearly everyone is buying rooftop solar, nearly every new power plant that comes online is

幾乎每個人都在購買屋頂太陽能，幾乎每個新上線的電站都是

industrial scale solar, or industrial wind.

工業規模的太陽能，或工業風能。

We need that level of effort to do a lot better than two degrees.

我們需要這種程度的努力，比兩個學位要好很多。

All of recorded human history has happened within an era of relative climate stability.

有記載的人類歷史都是在一個氣候相對穩定的時代發生的。

An era that's about to end.

一個即將結束的時代。

But we still have control over what comes next.

但我們仍然可以控制接下來的事情。

And the global effort that'll require hinges in part on what the US decides to do.

而這需要的全球努力，部分取決於美國決定怎麼做。

America can decarbonize. We have the technology to do it. We have the resources.

美國可以實現脫碳。我們有技術可以做到這一點。我們有資源。

The only question is whether we want to do it.

唯一的問題是我們想不想做。

I have a six year old and an eleven year old, and I have to believe that's going to happen. Otherwise..

我有一個六歲的孩子和一個十一歲的孩子 我必須相信這一切會發生。否則...

And I have to try to make that happen,

而我必須努力實現這一點。

as long as possible,

儘可能長的時間。

because it's their future we're stealing by not doing it.

因為我們不這樣做就是在竊取他們的未來。

Thanks for watching this episode of our 2020 election series.

感謝收看本期的2020年選舉系列節目。

We're focusing on the issues that matter most to you. And we got this topic requested by a lot of people.

我們關注的是你最關心的問題。而我們得到了很多人要求的這個話題。

We want to know what you think the candidates should be talking about.

我們想知道你認為候選人應該談論什麼。

Tell us at Vox.com/ElectionVideos.

在Vox.com/ElectionVideos告訴我們。