|
問：州長自己還在開悍馬車，要說服人民節省燃料會不會有點困難？
答：當然，當然。他非常了解。雖然他在銀幕上總是展現男性雄風、開著悍馬車、搞爆破等等，但人們不知道的是，他也有一台電動車。自從競選州長以來，他始終是與別人共乘汽車。我的意思是，他大概是全加州最省油的人了。
問：他會不會把悍馬處理掉？
答：嗯，等著看吧。姑且這麼說好了，他遲早會把悍馬處理好，因為這是他的競選承諾。
問：謠傳他嘗試把悍馬改裝成以氫燃料動力車？
答：你是指氫燃料混合動力車吧。我只能說，那是他的選舉承諾，而州長一向信守諾言。
問：關於氫燃料，想必你一定知道有些硬底子的環保人士認為這想法很瘋狂──他們說這或許在競選時聽起來不錯，但使用氫氣作為汽車動力是資源錯置，因為氫不算是再生能源，它必須從天然氣中提煉出來，而如果用天然氣發電來取代燃煤發電，會更有效果。
答：首先，如果我們不去發展氫能源，接下來該怎麼辦呢？就算是最樂觀的未來主義者也不認為我們有超過40年使用量的汽油，頂多50年吧。隨著汽車公司在中國和印度大量地投資，這兩地都有新興的中產階級，他們買的起汽車，他們將消耗掉大量的燃料。所以我們將很快發生能源短缺，我們必須計畫下一步，並且把它商業化。
專家認為，在氫的價格可以與每加侖2美元的汽油競爭之前，氫燃料時代還不會來臨。但是當我們納入考量所有的外部成本：對石油業的減稅優惠、醫療花費等，石油不再是每加侖2美元了。光是在加州，每年的外部成本從200億到500億美元，看你有沒有把生產力的損失算進去。而當你考慮到我們也已經耗盡煉油容量後，我們在不久的未來將會看到每加侖5美元的汽油。
問：每加侖5美元的汽油？什麼時候會出現？
答：假如你去看看AB 2076報告，你可以從加州能源委員會那邊下載，我們在未來三到五年間將會看到石油短缺，那將會導致油價上漲。前提是在這期間沒有恐怖行動或機械故障。
問：你和阿諾州長為什麼認為氫燃料計畫會成功？
答：這方面的科學已經存在了，每天從事這工作的人們唯一的挑戰在於先有雞還是先有蛋的問題：沒有足夠的車子，誰要投資蓋燃料站？或是沒有足夠的燃料站，誰要去製造車子？我們的「氫燃料上路」概念，一開始就引入所有相關的各個領域。有數十億美元躺在桌上──資金來源包括所有的能源、汽車公司，還有全世界像Ballard、Praxair這樣的大企業。我們想要把他們帶進同一個房間，然後讓每個人把他們的籌碼放到地圖上，講白一點就是說：你們想要把你們的燃料站蓋在何處？何時蓋好？然後問汽車公司，如果我們2010年之前在加州能蓋好200個站，他們可以開始製造什麼樣的交通工具？然後到了2012和2015年又可以達到哪些目標？我們開始詳細的策劃，這樣才能讓所有人都能事先對整個過程有所了解。詳細的藍圖在2005年1月前送至州長手上。（編按：加州第一座氫燃料站已於2005年5月間開幕營運）
|
Q: Isn't it hard for the governor to ask
people to be more sensitive about this when he drives a Hummer?
A: Sure, sure. He's very aware of that.
What people don't know, because his screen persona is macho and Hummers
and blowing things up, [is that] he also has an electric car. And since
he began campaigning for governor, he's never been in a car that hasn't
been a car pool. I mean, he's probably the most fuel-efficient person in
California.
Q: Is he going to get rid of the Hummer?
A: Well, stay tuned. He's going to do
something with the Hummer that ties into a campaign promise, let's just
put it that way.
Q: One rumor is that he's going to try to
adapt the Hummer to run on hydrogen.
A: Hybrid hydrogen, that's what his
campaign pledge was, and I'll just say, the governor always keeps his
promises.
Q: On hydrogen, you must know that some
knowledgeable environmentalists have said that this is a crazy idea --
that it may sound good out on the campaign trail, but using hydrogen to
fuel cars is a misallocation of resources, because the hydrogen won't be
produced renewably. It will be produced from natural gas, which could be
used more efficiently to phase out coal-fired power plants.
A: First of all, if we're not going to
evolve to hydrogen, what then? Even the most optimistic futurists don't
think we have more than 40 years, 50 tops, of our oil future. And with
car companies investing heavily in China and India, where a middle class
is now coming into existence that can afford cars, they're going to be
using fuel at a prodigious rate. So we're going to be running out very
shortly in real terms, and we've got to plan what's next and get it
commercialized.
Experts assume we won't move to hydrogen until it's cost competitive
with $2-a-gallon gasoline. But gasoline doesn't cost $2 a gallon when
you factor in all of the externalities: the tax breaks to the oil
industry, the health-care costs. In California alone, the
[externalities] cost is anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion a year,
depending on whether you include productivity losses as well. And when
you consider that we've also run out of refinery capacity, we're going
to be seeing $5-a-gallon gasoline in the very near future.
Q: $5-a-gallon gasoline? When?
A: If you look at the AB 2076 report, which
you can download from the California Energy Commission, we may see
shortages in the next three to five years, and that in turn will drive
prices up. And that's assuming no terrorism or mechanical upsets in the
meantime.
Q: What makes you and Gov. Schwarzenegger
think you can make this hydrogen plan work?
A: The science is there. The only challenge
that people who are engaged in this every day see is [the question of]
the chicken or the egg: Who's going to invest in fueling stations if
there's not enough vehicles, or who's going to produce vehicles if
there's inadequate fueling stations? [Our] hydrogen highway concept
[starts with] bringing together all the different players who are
working on this. There's billions of dollars on the table -- all the
energy companies and car companies and the Ballards and Praxairs of the
world. We want to bring them together in the same room and have everyone
put their chips on the map, in a literal sense: Where are you going to
put your stations and by when? And then ask the car companies, If we can
have 200 stations in California by 2010, what kind of vehicles could you
start delivering? And what by 2012 and 2015? Let's start blueprinting
this so we all have some predictability to the process. A blueprint
[will be delivered] to the governor by January 2005 with all the
specifics. |
|
問：看來你大多把焦點放在私人汽車上而不是大眾運輸。這樣說對嗎？
答：我不這麼認為。是因為加州有太多的私人汽車所以才會特別強調。但是州長承諾了一個大眾運輸的三步驟計畫。
第一步驟是用簡單的方法加強大眾運輸，使其使用更簡便。例如，洛杉磯和聖塔芭芭拉之間有鐵路但是沒有通勤服務，所以從聖塔芭芭拉到洛城的唯一方法是101號高速公路，可是這條公路每到星期日下午和每天通勤時段都非常的擁擠。如果我們可以把一些捷運轉乘服務連接到那條鐵路上，我們可以讓數以千計的人不開車而坐火車。我們正在清點有哪些幾近現成的解決方案，幾年內，我們將會讓計畫開始進行。
中期計畫是要完成一些建設，像有的鐵路差一英哩就可以到奧克蘭機場的鐵路，或是差0.25英哩就可以到洛杉磯國際機場，這一類的蠢事不少。換句話說，我們有很好的大眾運輸，可是沒有連接起來。
問：我們討論一下水資源吧，這一直是加州歷史的中心。我假設你已經知道了能源部的研究：加州到2025年的水需求會加倍，但水供應量反而會減少；原因是溫室效應使雨量增加、雪量減少，導致冬天淹水、夏天缺水，而夏天又是水需求量最高的時候。你計畫如何面對這個難題？
答：我們在水資源保存、儲水及水資源再利用方面有必須要做的事，不過我們還沒開始做。目前，我們每天從北加州輸送數十億加侖的水至南加州，利用水做各種事情，然後就把它流放到太平洋了。如果一個火星人來看到我們的系統，他會以為我們瘋了。我們知道在海博龍（Hyperion）污水處理廠每天流入太平洋的水有3.5億加侖，而這是我們應該運用的資源。在洛杉磯郡，過去15年來人口成長了15%，可是水的使用量成長量是0%，這是因為有一項積極的水資源保存運動在進行的關係。我們必須邊走邊學。
問：怎麼做呢？
答：首先，要讓其他城市採用類似的方法。在洛杉磯最有效率的一件事是通過一條法令，規定當一棟建築物轉手時，必須改裝省水馬桶和蓮蓬頭，這樣不會馬上造成負擔，又符合民情，因為人們在房屋易主時一般都會做些整修。我們目前正與農業局、農工產業領導層合作，研究「雷射整地技術」（laser-leveling，編按：利用雷射儀器精準控制農地坡度，使灌溉水均勻流佈，以節省水資源）和「滴水灌溉法」（drip
irrigation）。加州環保局的永續計畫則發展出一套適用於葡萄酒產業的標準，現已被廣泛的採用。另外，矽谷產業也承諾節水、節電，並減少溫室氣體排放。
問：最後一個問題是，以上這些和共和黨籍總統主政下的政策方略差了很遠。而阿諾已多次在環境議題上站出來對白宮嗆聲：「這方面我們跟你們不同。」你覺得未來會不會繼續出現與白宮的分歧？州長有沒有任何辦法可以幫助布希總統多一些環境意識？
答：我只能跟你說州長非常重視保護加州及其資源，讓我們能高高興興地把這個州交給我們的孩子們。我們與聯邦政策出現分歧的地方，在之前都曾嘗試化解過，但我們還是會繼續嘗試和聯邦合作。如果你回頭看看柯林頓主政時期，加州也並不是一直都同意聯邦政府的決策。所以我不會去公開指責什麼，我們該去做對於州以及後代有益的事，我們一定會去做。
問：躲得好。（笑聲）感謝您撥冗為我們做專訪。
答：謝謝你。 (全文完)
|
Q: It seems like a lot of your focus is on
private vehicles and not so much on mass transit. Is that accurate?
A: I wouldn't say so. The emphasis is on
private vehicles because California has so many. But the governor
pledged a three-part program on mass transit.
The first thing is just putting more butts into mass transit through
simple fixes that make mass transit easier. For example, there's heavy
rail between L.A. and Santa Barbara but no commuter service, so the only
way you can go from Santa Barbara to L.A. is on the 101 [freeway], which
is terribly clogged on Sunday afternoons and every day during the
commute. If we can get some Metrolink service on that existing rail
line, we can get thousands of people out of their cars and put them on
rail. We're doing an inventory right now to find all that low-hanging
fruit, and within a couple of years, [we'll] get those kinds of projects
up and running.
The mid-term goal is to finish projects like the rail line that right
now ends a mile short of Oakland Airport or a quarter mile short of [Los
Angeles International Airport] -- some of these silly things where you
have good mass transit but it isn't connected.
Q: Let's talk about water, which has always
been so central to the history of California. I assume you know the
study by the Department of Energy that says California will double its
water demand by 2025 but have less supply, because global warming will
bring more rain and less snow, which in turn will lead to flooding in
the winter but less water available in the summer, when demand is
highest. What do you plan to do about this challenge?
A: We haven't begun to do what we need to
do with conservation and ground storage and reuse. Right now, we send
billions of gallons of water every day from Northern California to the
south, do various things with it, and then throw it out into the Pacific
Ocean. If a visitor from Mars came down and looked at this system, he'd
think we were crazy. We know that the 350 million gallons a day that the
Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant by itself dumps into the Pacific Ocean
is a resource we should be using. In Los Angeles County, the population
has grown 15 percent in the last 15 years but water use has grown 0
percent because of an aggressive conservation campaign. We've got to
take those lessons on the road.
Q: How?
A: First, by getting other cities to adopt
similar approaches. One of the most effective things in Los Angeles was
passing an ordinance that says when a building changes hands, you have
to put in low-flow toilets and showerheads. So it doesn't create a
burden immediately, it's when you change hands and you're upgrading
anyway. We're working with the Farm Bureau and other industry-specific
agricultural leaders on laser-leveling and drip irrigation. Our
sustainability program at Cal/EPA has developed a set of standards for
the wine industry that is now being widely adopted. Silicon Valley is
another sector that has committed to water reduction, electricity
reduction, and global greenhouse-gas reduction.
Q: One last question: This is such a
different agenda than the Republican president of the United States has
followed. And Schwarzenegger has stood up on a number of environmental
issues and said to the White House, "We're not with you on this." Do you
expect further divergences with the White House, and is there any way
the governor can help the president get some religion on this?
A: All I can tell you is that the governor
is single-mindedly focused on protecting California and its resources
and making this a state we're happy to pass on to our kids. Where we
diverge on federal policy, we've tried to work with the federal
government, and we'll continue to do that. If you go back through the
history of the Clinton administration, California didn't always agree
with everything that came out of that administration. So I'm not going
to start pointing fingers. We have to do what's right for the state and
future generations, and we will.
Q: Nice dodge. [Laughter] Thank you for
your time.
A: Thank you. |
