I'd like to start with running two short experiments with you all.

我想跟各位做兩個 簡短的實驗來當作開端。

So your task is to notice if you feel any difference as I speak.

你們的任務是要留意 對我說的話是否感受不同。

OK?

好嗎？

Here we go.

開始囉。

We are seeing rising carbon dioxide levels,

現在我們發現二氧化碳量上升了

now about 410 ppms.

約 410 ppms。

To avoid the RCP 8.5 scenario,

為了避免 RCP 8.5 的情況， （註：嚴重的溫室氣體排放）

we need rapid decarbonization.

我們需要快速減碳。

The global carbon budget

全球的碳預算

for 66 percent likelihood to meet the two-degree target

在有 66% 可能性會達成 溫度 2 度之目標的條件下，

is approximately 800 gigatons.

大約是八十萬兆噸。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

OK, now let me try something else.

好，現在，讓我試試別的方式。

We are heading for an uninhabitable earth:

我們未來的地球將會無法居住：

monster storms,

超級大暴風、

killer floods,

致命的大洪水、

devastating wildfires,

毀滅性的野火、

crazy heat waves that will cook us under a blazing sun.

失常的熱浪，會在熾烈的 太陽之下把我們煮熟。

2017 is already so unexpectedly warm,

2017 年的暖化 已經超出我們的預期，

it's freaking out climate scientists.

氣候科學家都被嚇壞了。

We have a three-year window to cut emissions, three years.

我們有三年的空窗時間 可以縮減排放，三年。

If not, we will soon live in a boiling earth, a hellhole.

如果沒做到，我們很快就要 住在地獄般的沸騰地球上。

OK. So --

好，所以，

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Now your task:

現在，你們的任務：

How did these ways of speaking make you feel?

這兩種說法讓你們的感覺如何？

The first, detached maybe or just confused?

第一種，也許很抽離？

What's this guy talking about?

或只是困惑，這傢伙在說什麼啊？

The other, fearful or just numb?

另一種，恐懼或是只是麻木？

So again, the question I asked:

所以，我再問一次：

How do we get people engaged in solving global warming?

我們要如何讓人們參與 解決全球暖化的問題？

And why don't these two ways of communicating work?

為什麼這兩種溝通方式沒有用？

You see, the biggest obstacle to dealing with climate disruptions

處理氣候崩壞問題的最大阻礙

lies between your ears.

其實位在你的兩耳之間。

Building on a rapidly growing body of psychology and social science,

我以快速成長的心理學 和社會科學為基礎，

I spent years looking into the five inner defenses

我花了數年的時間探究

that stop people from engaging.

阻止人們去參與的五種內在防禦，

When people hear news about the climate coming straight at them,

當人們聽到關於氣候的消息 直直朝他們而來時，

the first defense comes up rapidly:

最先快速升起的防禦就是：

distance.

距離。

When we hear about the climate,

當我們聽到氣候，

we hear about something far away in space --

聽得到是在很遙遠的空間：

think Arctic ice, polar bears --

北極冰、北極熊；

far away in time -- think 2100.

在很遙遠的時間：想到 2100 年。

It's huge and slow-moving -- think gigatons and centuries.

它很巨大，進行得很慢： 想像數十億噸、數個世紀。

So it's not here. It's not now.

所以，它不在這裡，不是現在。

Since it feels so far away from me,

既然覺得它離我這麼遠，

it seems outside my circle of influence,

似乎是在我的影響圈之外，

so I feel helpless about it.

所以我覺得對它也無可奈何。

There's nothing I can do.

沒什麼我能做的。

In our everyday lives,

在我們的日常生活中，

most of us prefer to think about nearer things,

我們都偏向去思考比較近的事物，

such as our jobs, our kids,

比如我們的工作、我們的孩子、

how many likes we get on Facebook.

臉書上有幾個人按讚。

Now, that, that's real.

那些是真實的。

Next defense is doom.

第二種防禦是注定的厄運。

Climate change is usually framed

氣候變遷通常會被表達成

as a looming disaster,

令人生畏的災難，

bringing losses, cost and sacrifice.

帶來損失、成本、犧牲。

That makes us fearful.

那會讓我們懼怕。

But after the first fear is gone,

但當最初的懼怕消失之後，

my brain soon wants to avoid this topic altogether.

我的頭腦很快就會 想要完全避開這個話題。

After 30 years of scary climate change communications,

經過三十天讓人害怕的 氣候變遷溝通之後，

more than 80 percent of media articles still use disaster framings,

超過 80% 的媒體文章 仍然用災難型的表達，

but people habituate to and then --

但人們會開始習慣，接下來，

desensitize

對注定厄運的過度使用

to doom overuse.

開始無感、麻木。

So many of us are now suffering a kind of apocalypse fatigue,

所以我們許多人現在遇到的 是種「世界末日疲勞」，

getting numb from too much collapse porn.

因為太多的崩壞式煽情而麻木。

The third defense is dissonance.

第三種防禦是不一致。

Now, if what we know,

如果我們所知道的事，

that fossil fuel use contributes to global warming,

如化石燃料會造成全球暖化，

conflicts with what we do -- drive, fly, eat beef --

和我們所做的事，如開車、 搭飛機、吃牛肉等，有所衝突，

then so-called cognitive dissonance sets in.

就會有所謂的「認知不一致」出現。

This is felt as an inner discomfort.

這是種內在的不舒服感。

We may feel like hypocrites.

我們會覺得像偽善者。

To get rid of this discomfort,

為了擺脫這種不舒服，

our brain starts coming up with justifications.

我們的頭腦會開始找理由辯解。

So I can say, for instance,

讓我可以說，比如：

"My neighbor, he has a much bigger car than I do."

「我的鄰居，他的車比我的還大。」

Or, "Changing my diet doesn't amount to anything

或「如果只有我一個人改變飲食，

if I am the only one to do it."

太微不足道，沒有用。」

Or, I could even want to doubt climate science itself.

或我甚至可能會想要 懷疑氣候科學本身。

I could say, "You know, climate is always changing."

我可以說：「你知道， 氣候總是一直在改變的。」

So these justifications make us all feel better,

因此這些理由會讓我們覺得好過些，

but at the expense

但代價就是

of dismissing what we know.

不再去想我們知道的事。

Thus, behavior drives attitudes.

因此，行為影響態度。

My personal cognitive dissonance comes up

我個人的認知不一致發生在

when I recognize that I've been flying from Oslo to New York

發現自己已經從奧斯陸飛到紐約，

and back to Oslo

又再飛回奧斯陸時，

in order to speak about the climate.

為的是做氣候演講。 （註：指本次 TED 演說）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

For 14 minutes.

十四分鐘的演說。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So that makes me want to move on to denial.

那會讓我想要用下一種防禦：否認。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So if we keep silent,

所以，如果我們保持沉默，

ignore or ridicule facts about climate disruptions,

忽視或是揶揄關於氣候混亂的事實，

then we might find inner refuge

那麼我們可能會找到內在的庇護所，

from fear and guilt.

來躲避恐懼和罪惡感。

Denial doesn't really come from lack of intelligence or knowledge.

否認並不是來自於缺乏智慧或知識。

No, denial is a state of mind

不，否認是一種心理狀態，

in which I may be aware of some troubling knowledge,

在這狀態中，我可能知道 一些讓人煩惱的知識，

but I live and act as if I don't know.

但我就當不知道， 繼續我的生活和行為。

So you could call it a kind of double life,

所以你可以稱之為某種雙面生活，

both knowing and not knowing,

同時知道和不知道，

and often this is reinforced by others,

通常，因為他人、家庭、或社群

my family or community,

同意不再提起這難搞的話題，

agreeing not to raise this tricky topic.

否認就會被強化。

Finally, identity.

最後一項防禦，身份。

Alarmed climate activists

有警覺的氣候激進份子

demand that government takes action,

要求政府要在法規上

either with regulation or carbon taxes.

或碳稅上採取行動。

But consider what happens

但，想想這個例子：

when people who hold conservative values, for instance,

當價值觀保守的人聽到激進份子說

hear from an activist that government ought to expand even further.

政府應該要再進一步擴展， 會發生什麼事？

Particularly in rich Western democracies,

特別是在富有的西方民主國家，

they are then less likely to believe that science.

他們比較不可能會相信那種科學。

How is that?

為什麼會這樣？

Well, if I hold conservative values, for instance,

舉例來說，如果我的價值觀很保守，

I probably prefer big proper cars and small government

我可能會偏愛大車子和小政府，

over tiny, tiny cars and huge government.

而不是小小車子和大政府。

And if climate science comes and then says

如果氣候科學跳出來說

government should expand further,

政府應該要進一步擴展，

then I probably will trust that science less.

我可能不會太相信那科學。

In this way, cultural identity

文化身份會用這種方式

starts to override the facts.

開始推翻或無視事實。

The values eat the facts,

價值觀會吃掉事實，

and my identity trumps truth any day.

我的身份在任何一天 都能夠打贏真相。

So, after recognizing how these five D's kill engagement,

所以，在知道了這五個 D（防禦） 如何讓人們不去參與之後，

how can we move beyond them?

我們要如何超越這些防禦？

New research shows how we can flip these five defenses

新研究說明我們 能如何翻轉這五種防禦，

over into key success criteria

轉成重要的成功標準，

for a more brain-friendly climate communication.

來做對頭腦更友善的氣候溝通。

So this is where it gets really exciting

這就是很讓人興奮的地方，

and where we find the five S's,

也是我們能找到五個 S 的地方，

the five evidence-based solutions for what does work.

五種以證據為基礎的有效解決方案。

First, we can flip distance to social.

首先，我們把距離翻轉為社會。

We can make climate feel near, personal and urgent

我們可以讓氣候感覺比較近、 比較個人化、比較緊急，

by bringing it home,

做法就是把它帶回家，

and we can do that by spreading social norms

我們可以透過散播對於解決方案 有正向作用的社會規範

that are positive to solutions.

來做到這一點。

If I believe my friends or neighbors,

如果我相信我的朋友或鄰居，

you guys, will do something,

或你們，會做些什麼，

then I will, too.

那麼我也會做些什麼。

We can see, for instance, this from rooftop solar panels.

屋頂太陽能板就是一個這樣的例子。

They are spreading from neighbor to neighbor like a virus.

它們就像病毒一樣， 從一個鄰居散播到另一個鄰居。

It's contagious.

它是有感染力的。

This is the power of peer-to-peer creating the new normal.

這是同儕對同儕的力量， 能創造出新的常態標準。

Next, we can flip doom to supportive.

接著，我們可以把注定的厄運翻轉為支持。

Rather than backfiring frames

不要用逆火式的表述，

such as disaster and cost,

比如災難和成本，

we can reframe climate as being really about human health,

我們在表述氣候時可以著重 它和人類健康有多大的關係，

for instance, with plant-based delicious burgers,

比如，全植物食材製作的美味漢堡，

good for you and good for the climate.

對你有好處，對氣候也有好處。

We can also reframe climate as being about new tech opportunities,

我們也可以在表述氣候時， 強調新科技的機會，

about safety and about new jobs.

提及安全性和新工作。

Solar jobs, for instance, are seeing an amazing growth.

比如，太陽能相關工作 就有很大的成長。

They just passed the three million jobs mark.

不久前已經達成超過三百萬個工作。

Psychology says, in order to create engagement,

心理學家說，為了要創造參與，

we should present, on balance,

我們每提到一項氣候威脅，

three positive or supportive framings

就應該要用三種正面 或支持性的表述方式

for each climate threat we mention.

來取得平衡。

Then we can flip dissonance

這樣我們就可以把不一致

to simpler actions.

翻轉成更「簡單」的行動。

This is often called nudging.

這通常稱為「輕推」。

The idea is, by better choice architecture,

想法是，透過更好的選擇結構，

we can make the climate-friendly behaviors

我們能讓對氣候友善的行為變成是

default and convenient.

預設的、方便的行為。

Let me illustrate this. Take food waste.

讓我以食物浪費為例來說明。

Food waste at buffets goes way down

吃到飽餐廳可以大大減少食物浪費，

if the plate or the box size is reduced a little,

只要把盤子或盒子的尺寸 稍微縮小一點點，

because on the smaller plate it looks full

因為在小的盤子看起來會比較滿，

but in the big box it looks half empty,

在大的盤子看起來還有一半空著，

so we put more in.

我們就會放更多食物進去。

So smaller plates make a big difference for food waste.

所以小盤子就能 大大地減少食物的浪費。

And there are hundreds of smart nudges like this.

還有數百種像這樣的聰明「輕推」。

The point is, dissonance goes down as more behaviors are nudged.

重點是，當有更多行為 被輕推之後，不一致就會減少。

Then we can flip denial

接著，我們就可以翻轉否認了，

by tailoring signals that visualize our progress.

做法是去修改那些 將我們的進步給視覺化的信號。

We can provide motivating feedback

我們可以提供有激發性的回饋意見，

on how well we're doing with our problem-solving.

說明我們在解決問題方面做得如何。

Say you improved your transport footprint

比如，你改善了你的交通足跡，

or cut energy waste in your buildings.

或是減少了你的大樓的能源浪費。

Then one app that can share this well is called Ducky.

有個叫做 Ducky 的應用程式 能針對此做很好的分享。

The idea is, you log your actions there,

想法是，你把你的行動記錄在這裡，

and then you can see how well your team or company is doing,

然後你就可以看到 你的團隊或公司做得如何，

so you get real-time signals.

你就能得到即時的信號。

Finally, identity.

最後，身份。

We can flip identity with better stories.

我們能把身份翻轉為更好的故事。

Our brain loves stories.

我們的頭腦喜愛故事。

So we need better stories of where we all want to go,

針對我們想要達成的目標， 我們需要更好的故事，

and we need more stories of the heroes and heroines

我們需要更多英雄和女英雄的故事，

of all stripes that are making real change happen.

各種類型的人真正 在做出改變的故事。

I'm proud that my hometown of Oslo

我對我的家鄉奧斯陸感到很驕傲，

is now embarking on a bold journey of electrifying all transport,

奧斯陸正在進行一項大膽的旅程， 把所有交通運輸都電氣化，

whether cars, bikes or buses.

包括汽車、腳踏車、及公車。

One of the people spearheading this is Christina Bu.

先鋒部隊的其中一員是 克莉絲汀娜布。

She is heading the Electric Vehicle Association for years

她擔任電動車協會的領導人很多年，

and she has been fighting every day.

她每天都在奮戰。

Now, the UK and France, India and China have also announced plans

英國、法國、印度、中國 都已經宣佈了計畫，

for ending the sales of fossil cars.

打算要停止販售石油車。

Now, that's massive.

那是很大規模的。

And in Oslo, we can see how enthusiastic EV owners

在奧斯陸，我們能看到 熱忱的電動車車主

go and tell their electric stories to friends and neighbors

到處告訴他們的朋友和鄰居 關於電動車的故事，

and bring them along.

讓他們一同加入。

So we come full circle from story back to social.

從故事再回到社會， 就是個完整的圓。

So thousands of climate communicators

全世界數以千計的氣候溝通者

are now starting to use these solutions

現在都開始用這些

all over the world.

解決方案。

It is clear, however, that individual solutions

然而，很顯然，單一的解決方案

are not sufficient to solving climate alone,

不足以解決氣候問題，

but they do build stronger bottom-up support

但它們的確能由下而上 建立更強的支持，

for policies and solutions that can.

支持能真正解決氣候問題的 政策和解決方案。

That is why engaging people is so crucial.

那就是為什麼 讓人們參與是如此重要。

I started this talk

我開始這場演講時，

with testing two ways of communicating climate with you.

對各位測試了兩種溝通氣候的方式。

There is another way, too,

還有另一種方式，

I'd like to share with you.

我想和各位分享。

It starts with reimagining climate itself

這種方式始於重新想像氣候本身，

as the living air.

把它想像活生生的空氣。

Climate isn't really about some abstract, distant climate

氣候的重點其實並不是 抽象、遙遠的氣候，

far, far away from us.

離我們很遠很遠。

It's about this air that surrounds us.

它的重點是我們周圍的這些空氣。

This air, you can feel in this room, too,

在這間房間中， 你們也能感受到這些空氣，

the air that moves right now in your nostrils.

現在在你們的鼻孔中流動的空氣。

This air is our earth's skin.

這些空氣是地球的皮膚。

It's amazingly thin,

它薄得驚人，

compared to the size of the earth and the cosmos it shields us from,

和地球的大小以及它為我們抵擋 的宇宙相比，它是薄得驚人，

far thinner than the skin of an apple

從和直徑的比例來看，

compared to its diameter.

它遠比蘋果的皮還要薄。

It may look infinite when we look up,

當我們向上看，它看來無邊無際，

but the beautiful, breathable air is only like five to seven miles thin,

但這美麗、可呼吸的空氣， 只有 5~7 英哩的厚度，

a fragile wrapping around a massive ball.

一個巨大圓球的脆弱包覆。

Inside this skin,

在皮膚內部，

we're all closely connected.

我們都密切連結著。

The breath that you just took

你們剛剛吸入的空氣，

contained around 400,000 of the same argon atoms

包含了大約 400,000 個氬原子，

that Gandhi breathed during his lifetime.

和甘地在他的年代所呼吸的一樣。

Inside this thin, fluctuating, unsettled film,

在這層晃動不穩定的薄膜中，

all of life is nourished, protected and held.

所有的生命都受到滋養、 被保護著、被維持著。

It insulates and regulates temperatures

它能隔離和調節溫度，

in a range that is just right for water and for life as we know it,

讓溫度保持在一個 剛好適合水和生命的範圍，

and mediating between the blue ocean and black eternity,

在藍色海洋和黑色永恆之間做中介，

the clouds carry all the billions of tons of water

雲朵載著數十億噸的水，

needed for the soils.

土壤需要這些水。