And yet we feel overwhelmed in the face of rapid climate change.

然而，我們卻感到無法承受

It seems simple on the surface.

當我們面對急劇的氣候變遷時

Greenhouse gases trap energy from the Sun and transfer it to our atmosphere.

它表面上看起來很單純

This leads to warmer winters, harsher summers.

溫室氣體困住來自太陽的能量

Dry places become drier and wet places wetter.

並把它傳送到我們的大氣層

Countless ecosystems will die while the rising oceans swallow coasts and the cities we build

這使得冬天更加溫暖 夏天更加炎熱

on them.

乾燥的地區更加乾燥 潮濕的地區更加潮濕

So why don't we just like… prevent all of that?

在無數生態系死亡的同時

Well, it's complicated.

上升的海洋將吞沒海岸 以及我們在上面建造的城市

The public debate about stopping rapid climate change often focuses on a few key features,

所以為什麼我們不就...阻止這一切？

like coal plants, cars or burping cows.

這個嘛，事情很複雜

And so the solutions are often simplistic – rows of solar panels, biking to work,

有關阻止急劇氣候變遷的公眾討論 經常聚焦在幾個關鍵項目上

something something sustainability.

像是燃煤發電、車輛，或打嗝的牛

And a huge talking point is personal responsibility.

所以解決方案通常也很單純—

How YOU should change your lifestyle to prevent rapid climate change, which we will find out

太陽能面板陣列、騎腳踏車上班

together in the next few minutes.

什麼什麼可持續性

This is one of those videos where we want to encourage you to watch to the end, because

而討論的一大重點則是個人責任

to discuss real doable solutions, we first need to understand

「你」應該如何改變你的生活模式 來避免急劇氣候變遷

the problem.

這我們將在接下來幾分鐘一起探索

A Fuller Picture

這部影片是屬於我們想鼓勵你看到最後的那一種

Modern industrial society as we constructed it in the last 150 years, is inherently destructive

因為要討論真正可行的解決方案 我們必須先瞭解問題

to the planet.

一個更完整的景象

Basically everything we do to make our lives easier, safer and more comfortable is making

我們過去150年來打造的現代工業社會

things worse for the biosphere.

本質上對這星球是破壞性的

The food we eat, the streets we walk on, the clothes we wear, the gadgets we use, the way

基本上我們為了讓我們的生活 更輕鬆、更安全、更方便而做的一切

we move around and the pleasant temperatures we artificially create around us.

都讓生物圈變得更糟

While most people know about the serious impact of energy, beef, cars and planes, many major

我們吃的食物、我們行走的街道 我們穿的衣服、我們用的小配件

polluters are barely ever talked about.

我們移動的方式 以及我們在自己周圍人工製造的舒適溫度

The emissions leaking out of landfills are as significant as the emissions of all the

雖然大多數人知道影響嚴重的 能源、牛肉、汽車和飛機

jets in the air.

許多重大污染源卻幾乎從未被提到

More CO2 is released to run our homes than from all cars combined.

從掩埋場洩漏的排放量 相當於空中所有飛機排放量的總和

And the emissions produced when making a new car is equivalent to building just two metres

為了維持我們的家庭運作所釋放的CO2 比所有車輛加起來更多

of road.

而製造一台新車的排放量 只不過相當於兩公尺的道路

So it is nice to switch to electric cars but they won't solve anything if we keep building

所以雖然換成電動車是不錯 但它們不會解決任何問題

roads the same way.

如果我們繼續以同樣的方式鋪設道路

Fixing one small part of the industrial system is not enough.

只修正工業系統中的一小部份是不夠的

Each of the many different parts needs its own solution and many of them aren't straight

每一個不同的問題 都需要各自的解決方案

forward.

而其中許多並不是那麼直接

But even where we know what to do, just because a solution exists doesn't mean we are able

但就算我們知道該做什麼

or willing to implement it.

光是解決方案存在 並不代表我們能夠，或是願意去執行它

There are many gray areas in the fight against rapid climate change, the most prominent one

有許多灰色地帶存在於 和急劇氣候變遷的戰鬥之中

is the divide between rich and poor.

其中最顯著的 是富有和貧窮間的區隔

Emissions vs poverty

排放量 vs. 貧困

There is a clear connection between the prosperity of a nation and its carbon emissions.

一個國家的繁榮 和其碳排放量有著明顯的關聯

In other words, richer people tend to cause more emissions.

換句話說，富有的人們傾向於造成更多排放

So the key to fixing climate change is simply for the world's richest to cut back on their

所以解決氣候變遷的關鍵

extravagant lifestyles right?

不過就是讓世界上最富裕的人們 縮減它們奢靡的生活模式對吧？

While this would help, it wouldn't make the problem go away.

雖然這會有幫助，它不會讓問題消失

This is because 63% of global emissions come from low to middle income countries.

這是因為全球排放量中的63% 來自於低至中所得的國家

Countries where most people are not living extravagantly but are trying to escape poverty

這些國家的大多數人並沒有過著奢靡的生活

at worst, and achieve a comfortable lifestyle at best.

而是在最糟的情況下試著逃脫貧困 在最好的情況下達到舒適的生活

The unfortunate reality is that, currently, escaping poverty and becoming middle class

不幸的現實是，就現在來說 逃脫貧困並成為中產階級將產生無法避免的排放

creates unavoidable emissions.

所以要求發展中國家減少排放 看起來就像是企圖打壓它們

So asking developing countries to cut emissions just looks like an attempt to keep them down.

很難爭論一個地區應該保護他們的原生森林 該把錢花在太陽能板上而不是燃燒樹木

It is very hard to argue that a region should protect their primeval forests and spend money

如果他們大多數人口連基本需求都無法滿足

on solar panels instead of burning wood, when it can't meet basic needs for significant

所以，縮衣節食並不是一個很受歡迎的要求

parts of its population.

尤其如果提出這些要求的國家 其繁榮正是來自於過去對環境的損害

So, cutting back is not a popular demand, especially if the countries making these demands

所以對數十億人來說 排放更多對他們個人來說是件好事

got rich by causing environmental damage in the past.

如果我們忘記這件事 我們很可能會提出不可行的解決方案

For billions of people, more emissions are a good thing personally.

以混凝土為例 8%的CO2排放量來自於混凝土產業

When we forget about this, we tend to propose unworkable solutions.

那好，就不要用混凝土，對吧？

Take concrete.

但現在，混凝土也是一種便宜又簡單的方式 讓發展中國家持續增長的人口得以打造平價住宅

8% of CO2 emissions are released by the concrete manufacturing industry.

而像這樣的例子還有很多

Ok cool, stop using concrete, right?

即使是富裕的國家 也無法避免爭論急劇氣候變遷的解決方案

But right now, concrete is also a cheap and easy way for growing populations in developing

煤礦、天然氣、石油的禁止 被應該用什麼來取代的熱烈討論拖慢了速度

countries to build affordable housing.

市民有可能強烈反對核能 但也不希望風力或太陽能設施蓋在他們的後院

And there are many examples like that.

原則上這些問題都可以解決 但有些問題是我們現在還不知道如何克服的

Even rich countries aren't immune from disagreeing about rapid climate change solutions.

其中問題最大的，是糧食

Banning coal, gas and oil from the energy mix is slowed down by heated discussions about

不排放就是死

what should replace them.

我們很快就會需要餵飽100億人 而我們不知道如何做到這件事又不排放溫室氣體

Citizens can be strictly against nuclear power but also oppose wind or solar infrastructure

因為現代糧食生產 本質上需要有機或化學肥料

in their backyards.

零排放的糧食是不可能的

In principle all of these issues can be overcome – but there are things we don't currently

光是稻米每年就排放了大量的甲烷 實質上相當於全世界所有空中交通的排放量

know how to overcome.

更糟糕的是，我們最愛的食物也排放的最多

The most problematic one is food.

57%的糧食排放來自動物類食物

Emit or Die

然而它們只佔了世界總熱量的18% 總蛋白質的37%

We will soon need to feed 10 billion people, and we don't know how to do that without

而且隨著世界各地的人們變得富有 他們也想要更多肉

emitting greenhouse gases.

大多數文化中的傳統食物以植物類為主 加上一些肉類

Because of the nature of modern food production that requires fertilizers or manure, it is

但隨著工業化肉品生產 以及工廠化農業的興起

impossible to have zero-emissions food.

肉類已經變成了一種基本食物

Rice alone emits so much methane each year that it practically equals the emissions of

已開發國家經常性的放縱 以及發展中國家地位和財富的象徵

all the air traffic in the world.

如今世界上大約40%的可居住土地 在某種形式上都被用作肉類生產

What's worse is that the foods we like the most emit the most.

相當於北美州和南美洲相加

57% of food emissions come from animal-based foods, although they make up only 18% of the

這些是我們原本可以用來 讓原生生態系統重新生長的土地

world's calories, and 37% of its protein.

像是亞馬遜森林 並吸收大氣層中的碳

And as people across the world grow richer, they want more meat.

然而，這些土地大部分都被用在飼養動物上

Traditional diets in most cultures were primarily plant based with a little meat on top.

現有的解決方案很少見的 能讓不同政治立場，富有或貧窮的人，同樣地不開心

But with the rise of industrial style meat production and factory farming, meat has become

肉是高度情緒性的 並帶著許多「那你怎麼不...」這樣的論點

a staple food; a regular indulgence in developed countries and a symbol of status and wealth

就像是把它和那些最糟糕的污染源相比

in developing countries.

到頭來，事情很簡單： 只是減少吃肉不能阻止氣候變遷

Today about 40 percent of the world's habitable land is used for meat production in some form

但我們也無法在阻止氣候變遷的同時 完全不減少吃肉

or another, the size of North and South America combined.

這也同樣適用在其它一些事物上

This is land on which we could otherwise allow native ecosystems to regrow, like forests

它們對我們的生存沒那麼重要 但說實在的要捨棄它們也不太實際

in the Amazon, and suck carbon out of the atmosphere, but instead most of it is used

像是航空旅行、國際貨運 採礦和生產播放Youtub影片的設備

to feed animals.

所以這代表什麼？

The available solutions are uniquely able to make everybody on the political spectrum,

我們需要放棄我們的生活方式 而貧窮的人們永遠無法實現它嗎？

rich or poor, unhappy.

難道就沒有什麼科技可以拯救我們 好讓我們可以繼續開我們的大車然後每天吃肉嗎？

Meat is highly emotional and there are a lot of whataboutism arguments floating around,

解決方案 vs. 支出成本

like comparing it to the worst sources of emissions.

原則上，這樣的科技已經存在了：

In the end it is pretty simple: eating less meat alone won't stop climate change, but

CO2直接空氣捕捉 能將空氣中的二氧化碳抽離

we also can't stop climate change without eating less meat.

並保存在地底下或是製造其它產品

The same holds true for other things that are less crucial to our survival but frankly

所以為什麼我們不在世界各地、各個產業興建它們？

not realistic to make go away.

因為以我們現有的科技 這將花費差不多每年100億美元

Like air travel, oversea shipping, mining and the production of devices that play youtube

或是說美國一半的GDP

videos.

這些錢必須來自什麼地方 而目前沒人提供它

So what does this mean?

就只把這些成本丟給重大污染源 像是煉鋼廠或燃煤發電廠

Do we need to give up our way of life and can the poor never achieve it?

會導致它們產品的成本加倍 —接著這些原本毛利就很低的產業就破產了

Can't some technology save us so we can continue to drive our big cars and eat meat

要求政府支出看起來符合邏輯，但很多州的資源 實際上卻是被完全相反的事情綁住

every day?

像是補貼石油和天然氣

Solutions vs Expenses

這雖然看起來違反直覺 但有著明確的誘因

In principle, this technology already exists: Direct Air Capture of CO2 draws carbon dioxide

透過人為地保持燃料價格低廉 運輸和日常用品也被保持人為地便宜

from the air so that it can be stored underground or transformed into products.

這對全世界數十億人有著重大的社會影響

So why aren't we implementing it in every industry, everywhere?

這產生了政治遊說和獎勵措施

Because with the technology we have right now, this would cost some ten trillion dollars

它們使這循環永遠持續下去 才讓停止生產化石燃料如此困難

per year, or half the United States' GDP.

於此同時，非常昂貴的 針對遙遠問題的解決方案

This money has to come from somewhere and currently no-one is offering it.

像是碳捕捉，看起來它們可以再等等 畢竟技術上來說，當下沒人得到好處

Just dumping these costs on massive polluters like steel mills and coal power stations would

有些人爭論說遠離資本主義 是解決這一團糟唯一的辦法

double the cost of their products – and so these industries that operate on very tight

另一些人則堅持市場還應該更自由 沒有任何補貼之類的干涉

profit margins would go bankrupt.

還有人認為我們需要所謂的「去成長」 整體上作為一個物種減少消耗

Getting the government to pay for it seems logical but a lot of state resources are actually

但現實是至少就現在而言 沒有任何政治系統有著優異的表現

tied up doing the opposite, like subsidizing oil and gas.

能夠達成真正的永續發展 而過去其實也從未出現過

Which seems counter intuitive but follows clear incentives.

我們也沒有時間慢慢搞清楚這些 並做一大堆實驗

By artificially keeping fuel prices low, shipping and everyday goods are kept artificially cheap

我們現在就必須執行解決方案

too.

不只是中止所有可能的溫室氣體排放 也必須開始減少空氣中的CO2

Which has a major social impact on billions of people around the world.

光是調整我們的路線已經太遲了 我們必須積極地修正我們過去犯的錯

That creates political lobbies and incentives that perpetuate this cycle that makes it so

隨著我們浪費的每一年 更極端的改變將無法避免

hard to cut off fossil fuel production.

好

Meanwhile, very costly solutions for a far-off problem like carbon capture seem like they

讓我們深呼吸

can wait, as technically nobody benefits from it right now.

急劇氣候變遷以及我們居住的世界很複雜

Some argue that a move away from capitalism is the only solution to this mess, others

所以現在輪到「你」，親愛的觀眾，上場了

insist that markets should be even freer, without any interventions like subsidies and

可以麻煩「你」修好氣候嗎？

some suggest that we need what's referred to as “degrowth” and to cut back as a

我們這時代的一種論述是 我們全部都必須為急劇氣候變遷負責

species overall.

每一個人都必須盡到他的責任

But the truth is at least as of now, no political system is doing an impressive job at becoming

你為什麼不買台電動車？

truly sustainable and none have really done so in the past.

你為什麼不用電磁爐取代瓦斯爐？

We also don't have the time to figure this out and do a lot of experiments.

你換一扇雙層窗，停止吃肉，然後關掉你的燈如何？

We must implement solutions now.

把責任從最大的碳排放者轉移到 一般人—你—身上，比解決問題簡單多了

Not just to halt the release of all possible greenhouse gases, but also to start reducing

這甚至有額外的好處 如果解決急劇氣候變遷還能賣出新產品的話

the amount of CO2 in the air.

如果你沒有錢來買這些東西，或沒有時間做這些事 你應該感到愧疚

It's too late to just mend our ways, we have to actively correct our past mistakes.

這是一則很有效的訊息 因為它是真的

With every year we waste, more extreme changes will be unavoidable.

降低CO2排放最快的方法 是地球上所有富裕人口劇烈地改變他們的生活模式

Ok.

並且發展中的人們也不再去追求它

Let's take a deep breath.

選擇偏好氣候，而不是舒適和財富

Rapid climate change and the world we live in are complicated.

如果你有能力看到這部影片 那也包括你在內

So here is where YOU, dear viewer, come in again.

但我們才剛見證了一場全球性實驗

Could YOU please fix the climate?

在新冠病毒疫情期間待在家裡 不使用交通工具，並消費的更少

A narrative of our time is that we are all responsible for rapid climate change.

而這一切所達成的 不過是在2020年減少7%的CO2排放

That everyone needs to play their part.

要求一般大眾解決急劇氣候變遷的論點 在我們看向問題的規模時，就不攻自破了

Why don't you buy a new electric car?

為減少溫室氣體所作的個人貢獻是很好

Why don't you replace your gas stove with an electric one?

但它們在全球排放量的系統性現實之下顯得微乎其微

How about you double glaze your windows, stop eating meat and switch off your lights?

你個人的碳足跡這個概念 是在石油公司BP 2005年的廣告活動中被普及的

Shifting responsibility from the largest carbon emitters to the average person, you, is much

它可以說是史上最有效也最險惡的一場宣傳活動

easier to do than solving problems.

直到今天也仍然嚴重地分散我們所有人的注意力 使我們不去關注現實狀況

There's an extra bonus if solving rapid climate change sells a new product.

假設你在往後的餘生 徹底消除了你100%的碳排放

If you don't have the money or time for these things, you should feel bad.

你將為全世界存下相當於1秒鐘的排放量

It's an effective message because it is true.

即使是最有動力的人 也根本無法留下半點痕跡

The quickest way to cut CO2 emissions would be if all rich populations on Earth drastically

當我們合併急劇氣候變遷的危險性、排放量的規模 以及關於如何解決問題的缺乏共識

changed their lifestyles and if the people on the rise would not seek to achieve it.

這個挑戰似乎…難如登天

Favouring the climate over comfort and wealth.

這可能導致決策疲勞和道德許可 使你再也不會因為負面行為而內疚

If you are able to watch this video, this includes you.

我們為此掙扎了很長一段時間 也因此這部影片才製了這麼久

But we've just witnessed a global experiment in staying at home, not using transport and

所以，你真正能做的是什麼？

consuming less during the coronavirus pandemic.

有許多不同的觀點 而它們都被熱烈的討論著

And all it did was reduce CO2 emissions by 7% for 2020.

我們不知道誰是正確的 所以我們只能提供你Kurzgesagt的觀點和意見

Asking average people to solve rapid climate change breaks down when we look at the scale

觀點時間 你真正能做的是什麼？

of the problem.

我們需要以一種不同的方式 來思考和談論急劇氣候變遷

Personal contributions toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions are nice, but they are dwarfed

一種包羅萬象的系統性方法 不亞於根本性地改變現代工業社會

by the systemic reality of global emissions.

就像在前面漫長的令人沮喪的討論中說的 個人責任的角度被過份誇大了

The concept of your personal carbon footprint was popularized by the oil producer BP in

要達成科技、政治和經濟上如此大規模的系統性改變

a 2005 ad campaign.

我們必須影響真正有權力的人

Arguably one of the most effective and sinister pieces of propaganda that still seriously

政客必須知道，並強烈感受到人們在乎

distracts all of us from the reality of the situation.

而它們個人的成功有賴於對付急劇氣候變遷

If you eliminated 100% of your emissions for the rest of your life, you would save one

當政府和地區政客不願意改變某些法律

second's worth of emissions from the global energy sector.

擔心會影響到他們最大的 稅收貢獻者或政治獻金來源時

Even the most motivated person can't even make a tiny dent.

我們必須讓它們落選 並選出那些尊重科學的人們

When we put together the dangers of rapid climate change, the scale of emissions and

我們必須要求它們負起責任 實施最有效的氣候變遷策略

the lack of consensus over how to solve it, the challenge seems insurmountable.

不是把我們的時間浪費在 禁止塑膠吸管這種事情上

It can cause decision fatigue and moral licensing, where you no longer feel bad about behaving

而是去拉那些大槓桿：食物、交通和能源

in a counter productive way.

同時不忘記那些小一點的 像是水泥業或建築業

We have struggled a long time with this, which is why this video took us so long to make.

當工業界抗拒改變他們的作法 因為害怕損失或為了自保

So.

我們需要政治家去改變法律 並對部屬現有科技提供獎勵

What can you actually do?

以及大規模投資創新在我們 還沒有很好的解決方案的領域

There are many different takes and they are passionately discussed.

沒有理由工業界對利潤的追求 不能匹配盡可能減少碳排放的需求

We don't know who is right, so we can only offer you the Kurzgesagt perspective and opinion.

而如果他們還是不願意配合 必須以嚴厲的處罰和規範強迫他們

Opinion Part: What can you ACTUALLY do?

或使他們破產

We need a different way to think and talk about rapid climate change.

足夠迅速地將如此大範圍的改變 強行施加在全球經濟上還是不實際的

An all-encompassing systemic approach, nothing less than changing the fundamentals of our

因為許多低碳科技還需要很多時間和研究 也就是說，它們很昂貴

modern industrial societies.

但會有更多公司製造效率更高的 碳捕捉系統、美味的肉類替代品

As discussed in frustrating length, the personal responsibility angle is overplayed.

更好的電池、水泥替代品等等

For systemic changes in technology, politics and the economy of this magnitude, we need

如果明確並且持續成長的需求存在的話

to influence the people at the levers.

然後如果你有餘裕

Politicians need to know and feel strongly that the people care, that their own success

你可以現在就投資這些 還相對昂貴的產品來出一份力

depends on tackling rapid climate change.

這將是未來促使價格降低的機制

When governments and local politicians are reluctant to change laws that affect their

所以基本上這就是你能做的

biggest tax contributors or campaign donors, we need to vote them out and vote in people

用選票投票 用你的錢包投票

who respect science.

有太多相反的立場 以及複雜的灰色地帶存在

We need to hold them accountable for implementing the most effective climate change strategies.

到最後如果我們真的得到 我們需要的系統性改變

Not waste our time with things like banning plastic straws but by moving the big levers:

所有人都會對其中的某些部份有所不滿

Food, transportation and energy while not forgetting the smaller ones like cement or

唯有當我們每個人都接受 有些解決方案會對我們有負面影響

construction.

我們才能真誠的對話，並有所進展

When industries fight against changing their ways, for fear of losses or in an honest attempt

每一個人都會有一點不開心

to protect their own, we need politicians to change the laws and incentivise the deployment