So here's a thought.

聽聽這個想法：

The fossil fuel industry knows how to stop causing global warming,

化石燃料產業知道如何 停止造成全球暖化，

but they're waiting for somebody else to pay,

只是想等其他人來買單，

and no one is calling them out on it.

但沒有人拆穿他們。

I was one of the authors of the 2018 IPCC report

2018 年聯合國的 IPCC 發佈 關於攝氏 1.5 度的報告，

on 1.5 degrees Celsius.

我是作者之一。

And after the report was published,

那份報告被發佈之後，

I gave a lot of talks, including one to a meeting of young engineers

我做了許多演講， 其中有一場的對象是全世界

of one of the world's major oil and gas companies.

主要石油天然氣公司的年輕工程師，

And at the end of the talk, I got the inevitable question,

演說的尾聲，有人問了 這個必問的問題：

"Do you personally believe there's any chance

「你個人是否相信我們有機會

of us limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees?"

將全球暖化控制在 1.5 度？」

IPCC reports are not really about personal opinions,

IPCC 報告並不是要談個人的意見，

so I turned the question around and said,

所以我轉而問對方：

"Well, if you had to fully decarbonize your product,

「如果你們必須要把 產品中的碳排放完全除去；

that is, dispose safely and permanently of one ton of carbon dioxide

也就是說，在 2050 年之前，

for every ton generated by the oil and gas you sell,

你們賣出的石油和天然氣 每排放一公噸二氧化碳，

by 2050, which is what it would take,

你們就要將一公噸二氧化碳 安全且永久地處理掉，

would you be able to do so?"

你們能辦到嗎？」

"Would the same rules apply to everybody?" somebody asked,

有人問：「同樣的規則 適用於所有人嗎？」

meaning, of course, their competition.

他指的當然是他的競爭者。

I said, "OK, yeah, maybe they would."

我說：「好，是的，也許適用。」

Now, the management just looked at their shoes;

管理階層的人只是 低頭看著自己的鞋子；

they didn't want to answer the question.

他們不想回答這個問題。

But the young engineers just shrugged and said,

但年輕工程師只是聳聳肩，說：

"Yes, of course we would, like it's even a question."

「是的，我們能做到， 這根本不是問題。」

So I want to talk to you

所以我想要談談

about what those young engineers know how to do:

這些年輕工程師知道的方法：

decarbonize fossil fuels.

將化石燃料脫碳。

Not decarbonize the economy,

不是將經濟脫碳，

or even decarbonize their own company,

甚至不是將他們自己的公司脫碳，

but decarbonize the fuels themselves,

而是將燃料本身脫碳，

and this matters

這很重要，

because it turns out to be essential to stopping global warming.

因為結果發現這是 阻止全球暖化的關鍵。

At a global level, climate change turns out to be surprisingly simple:

在全球層面上， 氣候變遷實在簡單得驚人：

To stop global warming

要阻止全球暖化，就表示要停止 將二氧化碳排放到大氣中。

we need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

既然目前我們所排放的二氧化碳

And since about 85 percent of the carbon dioxide we currently emit

有 85% 都來自化石燃料和工業，

comes from fossil fuels and industry,

我們就必須要阻止化石燃料 造成進一步的全球暖化。

we need to stop fossil fuels from causing further global warming.

我們要怎麼做？

So how do we do that?

結果發現只有兩個選項。

Well, it turns out there's really only two options.

選項一，禁用化石燃料。

The first option is, in effect, to ban fossil fuels.

那就是「絕對零排放」的意思。

That's what "absolute zero" means.

不允許世界各地任何人 萃取、銷售、使用化石燃料，

No one allowed to extract, sell, or use fossil fuels

違反者將處以很重的罰金。

anywhere in the world on pain of a massive fine.

如果這個方法聽起來不會實現， 那是因為的確如此。

If that sounds unlikely, it's because it is.

就算有可能做到全球禁令，

And even if a global ban were possible,

2020 年在富裕國家的你我

do you or I in wealthy countries in 2020

有任何權利告訴 2060 年代

have any right to tell the citizens

貧窮、新興經濟體的公民

of poor and emerging economies in the 2060s

不要去碰化石燃料嗎？

not to touch their fossil fuels?

有些人主張，如果我們夠努力，

Some people argue that if we work hard enough

我們能把再生能源的成本壓低，

we can drive down the cost of renewable energy so far

低到我們不需要禁用化石燃料，

that we won't need to ban fossil fuels,

大家也自己會停止使用。

the people will stop using them of their own accord.

這種想法樂觀到十分危險。

This kind of thinking is dangerously optimistic.

一則，再生能源成本下降的速度 可能不如他們期望的那麼快。

For one thing, renewable energy costs might not go down as fast as they hope.

別忘了，

I mean, remember,

在 1970 年代，核能就應該 便宜到無法計量收費，

nuclear energy was meant to be too cheap to meter in the 1970s,

但，更重要的是，

but even more importantly,

我們不知道為了因應那樣的競爭，

we've no idea how low fossil fuel prices might fall

化石燃料的價格會下降多少。

in response to that competition.

好多地方都會用到化石碳，

There are so many uses of fossil carbon,

從航空燃料到水泥的生產，

from aviation fuel to cement production,

如果要阻止化石燃料 造成進一步的全球暖化，

it's not enough for carbon-free alternatives to outcompete the big ones,

無碳替代方案不能只勝過 那些大規模的碳使用，

to stop fossil fuels from causing further global warming,

而必須也要勝過所有碳使用。

carbon-free alternatives would need to outcompete them all.

所以，要阻止化石燃料 造成全球暖化，

So the only real alternative to stop fossil fuels causing global warming

唯一的真正替代方案 就是將化石燃料脫碳。

is to decarbonize them.

我知道這聽起來很怪， 將化石燃料脫碳。

I know that sounds odd,

意思就是，

decarbonize fossil fuels.

持續使用化石燃料， 每產生一公噸的二氧化碳，

What it means is,

就要將一公噸的二氧化碳 安全且永久地處理掉。

one ton of carbon dioxide has to be safely and permanently disposed of

這不是消費者能做到的，

for every ton generated by the continued use of fossil fuels.

所以責任就必須要交給

Now, consumers can't do this,

製造和銷售化石燃料的公司本身。

so the responsibility has to lie with the companies

它們的工程師知道怎麼做。

that are producing and selling the fossil fuels themselves.

事實上，數十年來他們都知道。

Their engineers know how to do it.

最簡單的選項就是直接捕集

In fact, they've known for decades.

從發電廠、高爐、煉油廠的煙囪 產生出來的二氧化碳。

The simplest option is to capture the carbon dioxide as it's generated

把這些二氧化碳淨化、 壓縮、重新注入到地底。

from the chimney of a power station, or blast furnace, or refinery.

如果注入得夠深， 且注入到特定的岩石結構中，

You purify it, compress it, and re-inject it back underground.

二氧化碳就會留在那裡， 就像它們的來源碳氫化合物一樣。

If you inject it deep enough and into the right rock formations,

若要阻止進一步的全球暖化，

it stays there, just like the hydrocarbons it came from.

永久性貯存的意思 就是至少要貯存數萬年，

To stop further global warming,

這就是為什麼用種樹的方式

permanent storage has to mean tens of thousands of years at least,

來減少化石碳排放是有幫助的，

which is why trying to mop up our fossil carbon emissions

但這只是暫時的權宜之計。

by planting trees can help,

在一些應用上，比如航空燃料，

but it can only be a temporary stopgap.

我們無法從源頭捕集二氧化碳，

For some applications like aviation fuel, for example,

我們必須要將二氧化碳 從大氣中重新收回。

we can't capture the carbon dioxide at source,

那是可行的；已經有公司 在做了，但也比較昂貴。

so we have to recapture it, take it back out of the atmosphere.

這就指向一個最重要的理由，

That can be done; there's companies already doing it,

說明為什麼收回並安全地處理二氧化碳

but it's more expensive.

還不是目前標準的做法：

And this points to the single most important reason

成本。

why recapturing and safe disposal of carbon dioxide

比起捕集二氧化碳並將之 安全地存回到地底下，

is not already standard practice:

直接將二氧化碳排入 大氣當中會便宜非常多。

cost.

但好消息是，

It's infinitely cheaper just to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

我們並不需要馬上就把燃燒 化石燃料所產生的二氧化碳

than it is to capture it and dispose of it safely back underground.

100% 全部都處理掉。

But the good news is,

經濟學家談到高成本效益的途徑，

we don't need to dispose of 100 percent

他們指的是用某些方式 來達成一定的結果，

of the carbon dioxide we generate from burning fossil fuels right away.

且不用很不公平地 將太多成本丟給下一代。

Economists talk about cost-effective pathways,

有成本效益的途徑

by which they mean ways of achieving a result

可以幫助我們將化石燃料脫碳的進度

without unfairly dumping too much of the cost

在 2050 年做到 100% 碳捕集和貯存，

onto the next generation.

也就是達成淨零的意思。

And a cost-effective pathway,

遵循這個途徑，我們要在 2030 年 達到 10% 的碳捕集，

which gets us to decarbonizing fossil fuels,

2040 年達到 50%，

100 percent carbon capture and storage by 2050,

2050 年達到 100%。

which is what net-zero means,

讓各位更清楚了解：

takes us through 10 percent carbon capture in 2030,

目前我們捕捉及貯存了 不到 0.1% 的碳。

50 percent in 2040,

所以，別誤會，

100 percent in 2050.

化石燃料脫碳並不容易。

To put that in context,

那意味著我們必須要建立 一個處理二氧化碳的產業，

we are currently capturing and storing less than 0.1 percent.

且規模要能和現今的 石油及天然氣產業相抗衡。

So don't get me wrong,

全世界的組織當中，

decarbonizing fossil fuels is not going to be easy.

工程能力夠好

It's going to mean building a carbon dioxide disposal industry

而且口袋夠深的

comparable in size to today's oil and gas industry.

就只有生產化石燃料的公司本身。

The only entities in the world

我們大家都能減緩化石碳的使用速度，

that have the engineering capability

讓這些公司有更多時間做脫碳，

and the deep pockets to do this

但前題還是它們得要去做。

are the companies that produce the fossil fuels themselves.

加上二氧化碳處置的成本

We can all help by slowing down our use of fossil carbon

會讓化石燃料產品變得更昂貴，

to buy them time to decarbonize it,

舉例來說，如果要在 2030 年 達到 10% 的碳貯存，

but they still have to get on with it.

可能會讓每公升汽油的成本 增加幾分錢美金。

Now, adding the cost of carbon dioxide disposal

但，和課稅不同，

will make fossil fuel-based products more expensive,

那筆錢很清楚會花在解決問題上，

and a 10 percent storage requirement by 2030, for example,

當然，消費者會有所回應，

might add a few pence to the cost of a liter of petrol.

比如，也許他們會換用電動車，

But, unlike a tax,

但不用告訴他們去這麼做。

that money is clearly being spent on solving the problem,

重要的是，

and of course, consumers will respond,

如果開發中國家同意使用

perhaps by switching to electric cars, for example,

以這種方式逐漸脫碳的化石燃料，

but they won't need to be told to do so.

那麼它們的絕對消費量 就不需要受到限制，

And crucially, if developing countries agreed to use fossil fuels

也就不用擔心這限制 會壓抑它們的成長。

that have been progressively decarbonized in this way,

在過去幾年，

then they never need accept limits on the absolute amount that they consume,

有越來越多人在談論

which they fear might constrain their growth.

二氧化碳處置的重要性。

Over the past couple of years,

但從他們的言論看來，

more and more people have been talking

好像靠慈善活動或減稅 就吸收的了處置的成本。

about the importance of carbon dioxide disposal.

但基金會或納稅人為什麼要付錢

But they're still talking about it

來幫仍然在獲利的產業做清理？

as if it's to be paid for by philanthropy or tax breaks.

不，我們可以將化石燃料本身脫碳。

But why should foundations or the taxpayer pay to clean up

如果我們確實將化石燃料脫碳，

after a still-profitable industry?

同時也讓森林砍伐這種事情受到控制，

No. We can decarbonize fossil fuels.

我們就能阻止全球暖化。

And if we do decarbonize fossil fuels,

不這麼做，就無法阻止。就這麼簡單。

as well as getting things like deforestation under control,

但必須要發起運動才能實現它。

we will stop global warming.

所以，你能怎麼幫忙？

And if we don't, we won't.

那就要看你的身分了。

It's as simple as that.

如果你在化石燃料產業工作 或投資這個產業，

But it's going to take a movement to make this happen.

別將你的化石燃料資產賣給 比你更不在乎的人

So how can you help?

來閃躲問題。

Well, it depends on who you are.

這是你的問題，

If you work or invest in the fossil fuel industry,

你必須要補救它。

don't walk away from the problem by selling off your fossil fuel assets

將你的投資組合脫碳， 幫的不是別人，是你的良心。

to someone else who cares less than you do.

你必須要將你的產品脫碳。

You own this problem.

如果你是政治人物或人民公僕，

You need to fix it.

你必須要檢視你喜愛的 氣候政策，並問：

Decarbonizing your portfolio helps no one but your conscience.

這個政策如何協助化石燃料脫碳？

You must decarbonize your product.

它如何協助將更高比例的

If you're a politician or a civil servant,

化石燃料二氧化碳

you need to look at your favorite climate policy and ask:

做安全且永久性的處置？

How is it helping to decarbonize fossil fuels?

如果它做不到這些， 而可能用的是其他方式來減緩全球暖化，

How is it helping to increase the fraction

這會有些用處，

of carbon dioxide we generate from fossil fuels

但它是無法阻止全球暖化的， 除非你的政策是禁用化石燃料。

that is safely and permanently disposed of?

最後，如果你是環保人士，

If it isn't, then it may be helping to slow global warming,

化石燃料產業本身 在解決氣候變遷問題上

which is useful,

扮演如此重要的角色， 這個事實可能會讓你很不舒服。

but unless you believe in that ban, it isn't going to stop it.

你會擔心：「那些二氧化碳 貯存庫不會外漏嗎？」

Finally, if you're an environmentalist,

「這個產業裡不會有人作弊嗎？」

you probably find the idea of the fossil fuel industry itself

在接下來的數十年，可能會發生外漏，

playing such a central role in solving the climate change problem disturbing.

可能會有人作弊，

"Won't those carbon dioxide reservoirs leak?"

但那些外漏和那些作弊

you'll worry,

是會讓化石燃料脫碳變得更困難，

"Or won't some in the industry cheat?"

但脫碳還是勢在必行， 由不得我們不做。

Over the coming decades, there probably will be leaks,

全球暖化等不到化石燃料產業消失。

and there may be cheats,

只是一味喊著要消減這個產業，

but those leaks and those cheats

其實是放過它一馬， 讓它不用去解決它自己的問題。

will make decarbonizing fossil fuels harder,

在這些分裂的時代， 我們必須要在未預期的地方

they don't make it optional.

尋找協助，甚至尋找朋友。

Global warming won't wait for the fossil fuel industry to die.

該是號召化石燃料產業

And just calling for it to die

來協助解決其產品 所造成之問題的時候了。

is letting it off the hook from solving its own problem.

它們的工程師知道怎麼做，

In these divided times, we need to look for help

我們只是需要讓管理階層抬起頭來， 別再看著他們的鞋子了。

and maybe even friends in unexpected places.

謝謝。

It's time to call on the fossil fuel industry

to help solve the problem their product has created.

Their engineers know how,

we just need to get the management to look up from their shoes.

Thank you.