郭英釗：別把綠建築當贖罪券

　圖／郭英釗建築師認為，花博新生三館像兩個生物體，在艱難的環境裏求生(齊柏林攝影)
　文／張楊乾(台達電子文教基金會低碳生活部落格主編)

　在採訪郭英釗建築師前，我一直不確定他是因考量基金會是那瑪夏民權國小的業主，所以才願意在過年前如此忙亂的時刻，接受我所主持的廣播節目倉促的約訪；還是他純粹是想再度透過媒體，將他對綠建築的理念向外闡述。
##CONTINUE##
　雖然採訪完之後，我還是不太敢確定，但看郭英釗願意花上大半個下午，跟著我們走了兩三個適合採訪的地點；但一採訪完卻也不囉唆，立刻就站事務所同事的電腦前，對著設計圖提出他的想法，我只覺得，這是一個對任何事情都極度專注的前輩。

　郭英釗和他的合夥人張清華，以及所帶領的「九典建築師事務所」，在台灣幾乎已和綠建築劃上等號。從台北市立圖書館北投分館，再到俗稱花博「新生三館」的夢想館、未來館與生活館，都可以看到在台灣不曾出現的綠建築新樣貌。

建築 也該會起雞皮疙瘩
　花博的新生三館，是花博策展人丁錫鏞口中「重點中的重點」。三個場館或利用覆土的屋頂、或導引由樹下進氣的地道風流動其中、或是利用大片的水簾，都讓建築對空調的依賴大幅降低。

　郭英釗說，花博這三個館位處新生公園偏遠的角落，一方面有航道的壓迫，卻又同時擁有很多很棒的樹。「其實三館從空中看，像兩個生物體，在一個很艱苦的環境求生存的樣子。」他指出，三館設計時是希望像人一樣，熱了會脫衣服，冷了會起雞皮疙瘩，當外界條件改變時，建築也必須作出對應，所以會有水簾、地道風等設計。「一般的建築物，可能外面的氣候其實很合適，可是建築物卻不知道。」郭英釗認為，建物智能化的過程，的確可以達成節能的目的。

　不過，在郭英釗的心中，不論是綠建築或不是綠建築，對環境的發展其實都是負面的，只是程度不同。他說，建築本身就消耗許多的能源，從挖地基開始，一直到建築落成後其中使用的電器。但他也認為，蓋綠建築並不是贖罪，不是說蓋綠建築就可以愈蓋愈多，「最綠的建築就是不蓋。」

木造建築 兼可顧碳
　至於為什麼自己為什麼會走向綠建築，郭英釗想不起有什麼特別時刻。但他一直相信，人類是不斷在追求效率的提升，而生物的演化本身就是效率的最佳展現，所以建築也應跟生物一樣不斷演化提升效率，這也是他把九典事務所的英文取名「Bioarch」的由來。

　而從北投圖書館或是新生三館，都可以發現郭英釗利用了大量的木頭，這中間是否帶有一些隱喻? 「其實一開始是被業主逼的，」郭英釗坦承，是因為業主要求，所以才會在蓋北投圖書館會，用了大量的木頭，但後來發現光是展現木頭的力量，「建築師不用再作什麼設計。」

　他也認為，樹木是可以不斷生長，生生不息，不像是鐵或是鋼，蘊藏量用完了就沒有了，當然用木頭的先決條件，是林木必須要從管理良好的林場來。他說，新生三館的木頭主要來自於美加地區經永續林木認證(FSC)的木頭，部份則來自台灣竹東地區造林疏伐的木頭，這些木造建材也都固下了不少的碳。

春節 多看書 多看樹
　但民眾而言，綠建築多半也是旅遊景點，我就聽過不少人一進北投圖書館，就先問咖啡廳在哪邊。所以過年假期，郭建築師是不是能推薦幾個綠建築讓民眾去參觀? 郭英釗想了一想，先應景地說了基金會所捐建給成大的「孫運璿綠建築研究大樓」，也就是俗稱的「綠色魔法學校」，但接下來則說，「我其實過年期間都是在看書，也鼓勵大家看書。」

　或許拗不過我一再希望他提出春節旅遊景點，最後他說個人最推薦大家去看台南的老樹，包括像中山公園、成大校園以及台南一中的大樹，「這些大樹真的很了不起。」另外的看樹地點，他則建議是阿里山的神木群，不過他也知道過年期間可能是進不了阿里山，但建議大家有時間去看就是了。

　曾有學生問郭英釗，除了會蓋綠建築，還會蓋什麼? 但綠建築對郭英釗而言，一直都不是個議題。「我們一直是這個樣子的，只是社會的顏色變了，背景顏色一變，我們突然就跳出來了。」他說，事務所一直追求的是設計出高效率的建築，一個不斷進化且能減少使用地球資源的建築，今天你稱它是「綠建築」，他就是「綠建築」，而當明天有了另一個新的名詞，但郭英釗所追求的信念，卻不會跟著改變。

　如果您對綠建築有興趣，春節假期人也在北部，我個人建議可以花博新生三館走走。到公園時，也別只顧著找正在淨化水質的空心菜，讓它安心作好份內的事；倒是可多看看這三棟用信念蓋成的建物，以及想像其未來對台灣地貌的改變。

　(本集節目將於1/31日晚間七點於IC之音竹科廣播線上直播，並將於近日上線隨選收聽)

關於作者
張楊乾，六年級生，曾任報社記者、大學研究助理。幾年前在看到我國友邦吐瓦魯被海水蓋過去的照片後，毅然決定飛到歐洲去學全球暖化。現任台達電子文教基金會低碳生活部落格主編，曾獲第四屆華文部落格大獎、第二屆學學文創獎、2009年開卷好書獎、第一屆遠見雜誌台灣環境英雄獎。

五都上路 流域治理曙光初露?

　圖／武陵農場現在也掛台中市的路牌，圖為農場內的七家灣溪(Kovis上傳Flickr共享)　
　文／盧沛文(台達電子文教基金會低碳生活部落格志工寫手團)

　當新五都選舉剛剛落幕之際，我回到台灣進行博士論文的前期田野調查。從和幾位專家學者的對談中發現，以台灣目前在河川治理上，不是沒有新思維，但卻欠缺整合的視野，五都整併之後，或許是一個新契機。
##CONTINUE##
流域治理 一條鞭管理
　我首先發現，在新五都分治下，環境規劃或許能有新思維。以河川治理來說，由於台灣的河川多半是縣市的分界線，河道兩岸的土地利用分屬於不同的管轄單位，另外，以往縣市政府分別管理河道的上中下游，整體流域管理的想像不易落實。縣市合併提供了一個整合性空間規劃的契機，藉由新計劃案的提出和管轄權則空間的改變，更有機會落實流域治理的概念。

　在流域治理的架構下，專家學者提出『上游保水，中游節流，下游滯洪』的概念。河川上游的非都市土地，首重土壤水涵養，避免過度開發。河川中下游則應該減少河道的過度使用，配合滯洪空間的規劃，減少對河川既有的沖積帶的土地使用，逐步還地於河。

災難適應與恢復 應列重點
　此外，極端降雨與氣候變化的不確定性暴露了既有工程方法在河川治理上的局限性。未來應強化水利工程和空間規劃間的合作關係，以更宏觀的角度，增加對應不確定性(uncertainty)的適應力(adaptation)，以及特定災害發生時的恢復力(resiliency)。

　最後，科學研究應該成為空間發展策略的溝通平台。以地理資訊系統(GIS)為例，面對水相關議題時，科學研究不僅可作為空間決策時不同專業間對話的平台，就不同面向做整合性的判斷，更可以藉由空間分析對空間決策進行模擬與再評估。藉由對空間資訊的掌握與對話，做出合理且具前瞻性的判斷。

作者簡介
盧沛文 (Peiwen, LU)，畢業於台大地理系與成大建築研究所，2009年教育部公費留學獎學金得主。目前是荷蘭台夫特科技大學博士後選人，並參與歐盟FP6子計畫 URBAN-NET。博士研究關注都市恢復力在空間規劃與都市發展策略上的影響與轉變，以都市防洪與水相關議題為主軸。

【延伸閱讀】
《災復能力 城市競爭的新焦點》盧沛文 23-Nov-10 低碳生活部落格
《工程思維依舊 五都未來照淹》鍾振坤 22-Nov-10 低碳生活部落格
《台灣救災 荷蘭防災》林育慈 5-Nov-10 低碳生活部落格

發展的紅線 誰來劃?-記洛克史登教授台北演講

影／Johan Rockström教授在 TED 的演說
文／楊為植(國際科學理事會會長特別助理，原題："Boundaries for Managing the Human Enterprise: An Afternoon at a Symposium")

　“Humanity must begin bending the curves…” It was a grey afternoon on November 4th, 2010. 200 or so students, scholars and citizens sat in a symposium hosted by the Institute of Atomic and Molecular Sciences at the National Taiwan University (NTU) (中央研究院原子分子研究所). They were listening intently to a presentation given by Professor Johan Rockstrom – head of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the Stockholm Resilience Center; 2009 Swedish person of the year; and one of the world’s top scientists on resilience and sustainability issues.

　The experts sharing the floor with him in this symposium were no less distinguished: Professor Shaw-Chen Liu from Academia Sinica’s Research Center for Environmental Changes (中央研究院環境變遷研究中心主任劉紹臣教授)；Professor Chen-Tung Arthur Chen of the Institute of Marine Geology and Chemistry at the National Sun Yat-sen University (中山大學亞太海洋中心陳鎮東教授), Professor Jiunn-Rong Yeh of the National Taiwan University College of Law (台灣大學法律系葉俊榮教授)，and the Moderator, former Academia Sinica President and a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Professor Yuan-Tseh Lee (引言人, 前中研院院長李遠哲).
##CONTINUE##
“In nature, surprise is the norm, not the exception”

　A year before, Professor Rockstrom had led an eminent group of scientists who published an influential paper in the journal Nature titled “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” And he is now here to share their groundbreaking findings. The premise of their research was simple enough. For the past 10,000 years – the Holocene – the global climate was remarkably stable. There is scientific evidence to suggest that this equilibrium is the only state of the planet we know of that can support human development as we know it. They reasoned, therefore, that keeping the planet in this stable state would be wise. Yet, everywhere we look, humans are rapidly altering their natural surroundings.

　It’s not just our emission of greenhouse gases that displays the famous “hockey-stick figure” (flat for most of history, then steep rise within the last 1-2 centuries – similar to the curve of a hockey stick). Species extinction, deforestation, land degradation, air pollution, population growth, etc… all conform to this “hockey-stick” trend. Mankind is changing the environment at a rate without historical precedent. The Nobel-winning scientist Paul Crutzen (a co-author on the paper) thus believes that we have entered the “Anthropocene” – an age where humans are now the single biggest driver of environmental change.

　So what is so problematic about these man-made changes? Professor Lee says that he is often asked: “What’s the big deal about two degrees? Temperatures change much more than that from season to season, or even from morning to evening!” “But look at the human body,” replies Prof. Lee. If our body temperature rises by a mere one degree, we have a fever; if it rises by 2-3 degrees beyond that, we may die. And the Earth, like the human body, is a finely-tuned system.

　Man-made change is also problematic because of what Prof. Rockstrom calls “sudden regime shifts”, or “tipping points.” Most of us think of change as linear – for instance, if we put a given amount of pollutant into the environment, we should expect a proportional increase in pollution, not much more, and not much less. Prof. Rockstrom observes, however, that “in nature, surprise is not the exception, it’s the norm.” He raises as examples the sudden collapse of coral reef systems after decades of over-fishing, tourism and climate change, and the totally unforeseen loss of 30-40% of the Arctic’s summer ice-cover in 2007 due to climate change. In these and many other systems, conditions appear to be relatively stable despite a barrage of external forces; but then, all of a sudden, the systems shift to a completely different state. (Professor Chen added: “even within the stable Holocene, there are surprises!”)

　As human development places more and more pressure on natural systems, these systems become less “resilient.” Whereas before, a natural system could withstand shocks while remaining relatively stable, now even a slight “push” could tip them over abruptly and dramatically into a state that is unable to provide for human welfare. And this change may be irreversible. Prof. Rockstrom states, for example, that we have no idea how to “re-freeze” the arctic. Similarly, it is virtually impossible to restore an ecosystem once it’s been lost.

　Here, not only is uncertainty not a reason to rest easy and wait until scientists are sure, it is a frightening reason for worry. We know we are changing the planet, more often than not in negative ways. And we have witnessed the wholesale collapse of natural systems after years of human influence. What we do not know is at what point these collapses may happen. If that does not seem scary, imagine that you are in a snowstorm, trying to find a way home. You know there are cliffs nearby, but you cannot see where they are.

　Planetary Boundaries: a Safe Operating Space for Humanity

　In the Nature paper, Prof. Rockstrom and his colleagues propose a solution to this problem of not knowing where the tipping points are: we set safe boundaries that make it unlikely we would get close to them. Prof. Rockstrom illustrates this point with a picture of a man standing at the edge of a waterfall: “You do not want to be standing where he is. In fact, it’s illegal to stand there.” A little further upstream, there are fences that keep people away from the brink. Planetary boundaries would function much like these fences, keeping humanity away from points of danger.

　Taking Earth as one system, their research identifies nine “processes” that are central to the functioning of the Earth system. These are: stratospheric ozone layer; biodiversity; chemical dispersion; climate change; ocean acidification; freshwater and the global hydrological cycle; nitrogen and phosphorous inputs into the biosphere and oceans; and aerosol loading in the atmosphere. Every one of these needs to be in good health for our planet to remain stable. For each of the nine, they try to determine, according to the best science, where the “danger zones” are. They then set the “boundaries” at the lower end of the danger zones, warning humanity not to cross beyond.

　What makes their effort truly new is that they attempt to come up with specific numbers for these boundaries. Thus, they set the boundary for climate change at 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere; go above this level, and we risk incurring climate disasters. For biodiversity, the threshold we need to stay below is 10 out of every million species going extinct per year. For the ozone layer, its boundary is a concentration level of 276 “Dobson units”, and so forth. And we have already “transgressed” three of them – climate change (we are at ~390 ppm), biodiversity (the current extinction rate is already over 100 out of a million species), and the nitrogen cycle.

　As Prof. Rockstrom would tell you himself, where to set the boundaries is still a subject of much debate among experts, and will be for a long time to come. And in fact, the science is not yet capable of assigning a number to two of the boundaries: atmospheric aerosol and chemical pollution. Yet remarkably, when they shared their proposed boundaries for review by many top scientists in the nine areas, not even once did anyone question the basic idea of setting boundaries.

　“Humanity must begin bending the curves”

　While the precise locations of the boundaries are still up for debate, the experts at the symposium leave no room for debating whether humanity needs to change course. Referring to the many “hockey-stick curves”, Prof. Rockstrom emphatically declares that we simply have to start bending those curves downward. After all, severe impacts from climate change are already happening.

　Professor Shaw-Chen Liu (中研院環變中心主任劉紹臣教授) quickly brought this point home to the largely Taiwanese audience. His recent research reveals some terrifying trends. The relationship between temperature and extreme rain events is alarmingly more sensitive to global warming than previous projections by climate models, particularly at low latitude areas such as Taiwan. Here, when temperature rises by one degree Celsius, the strongest 10% of rain increases by 150%! This is much worse than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections, and brings deadly disasters with which the Taiwanese public has become painfully familiar. Yet ironically, light to moderate rain has been happening less and less frequently at the same time, leading to droughts, sometimes after a year of storms and floods.
So we have to bend the curves. And the challenge is daunting. Prof. Rockstrom cites a study finding that, to have a good chance of limiting post-industrial temperature rise to within 2 degrees C, global carbon emission would have to approach zero by 2050 (this is in agreement with most scientific studies on the subject). But this is complicated by the question of equity and justice, an issue that loomed large in the symposium discussions.

　A Matter of Equity

　As scientists are urging the world to go zero-carbon by 2050, developing countries are just ramping up. Many of them never enjoyed the fruits of high carbon-emitting development, and are unlikely to agree to carbon neutrality while many of their citizens are still struggling in poverty. And, Prof. Rockstrom says, they have a legitimate point. It would be unfair for us to deprive them of the development rich nations have long enjoyed. Plus, developing countries are bearing the brunt of the climate impact thus far. For instance, Professor Liu (劉紹臣教授) observes that higher temperatures appear to intensify precipitation in the lower latitudes more than the higher latitudes. And developing countries, unfortunately, reside mostly in the lower latitudes.

　Prof. Yuan-Tseh Lee (李遠哲院士) recounts an exchange he had at a recent meeting overseas. A participant from a developing country said firmly that they would never agree to carbon neutrality. “We would rather that we all die together,” he said. However, the man relented a little when Prof. Lee said: “what about an annual per capita carbon emission of three tons?” This would still allow most poor countries to increase their emissions many-fold. “Ok, we might accept that,” the man replied.

　An arrangement such as this would of course require even more drastic reductions from the developed countries. Prof. Rockstrom suggests: “If we were to leave room for a reasonable level of further development for the developing countries, the developed countries may have to go zero-carbon between 2020 and 2030.”

　“We have nowhere to run”

　However difficult, change must come nonetheless. The good news is that changes are already happening, often in surprising places. Professor Yeh (葉俊榮教授) notes that around the world, the number of lawsuits against large carbon-emitters, including governments, has been climbing rapidly. Here Prof. Rockstrom raises an intriguing scenario. In the future, we may see nation-states suing other nation-states for their carbon pollution. What if sea-level rise completely destroys an island nation, and scientists find a convincing link between this and the greenhouse gases emitted mainly by a few large states? This would surely pose an interesting question for international law.

　Professor Yeh (葉俊榮教授) wonders also about the possibility of applying the boundaries concept to more specific areas of social, economic and environmental management. What if we could, by looking at sustainable development indices, derive boundaries that could tell us how much a certain industrial or economic activity is too much?

　Whatever the case, Professor Chen (陳鎮東教授) argues, there has to be change at the government level. He suggests that at this moment, even some basic requirements on environmental monitoring in Taiwan are inadequate. Professor Y.T. Lee (李遠哲院士) comments further that our government still talks enthusiastically about raising per capita GDP to US$30,000, and about “dominating the market.” So there has to be a change in mindset.

　But the government cannot act alone. Professor Yeh (葉俊榮教授)contends that “policy-makers” no longer mean just the President and the Ministers; it should include the public as well. If we wish to shift from the narrower “government” to the broader “governance,” the public has to play a part. For Professor Yeh (葉俊榮教授), the fact that international negotiations on climate are still centered around states is precisely the problem. The states maneuver and leverage their weights to pursue “the national interest”, but according to how the government interprets it.
The symposium concluded, and the crowd dispersed. But the bottom-line seemed clear: our societies are playing a dangerous experiment on the Earth system, one that may well overturn the environmental stability that has underpinned our development for the past 10,000 years. So putting some safety limits around this experiment would be a wise idea – perhaps through a series of boundaries at the planetary scale. The trouble is that our social, political and economic structures are so deeply committed to this experiment, the challenge of turning around almost boggles the mind. We need everyone to be actively involved, from the hallways of power to the boardrooms and the most local of communities. And we just may have to accomplish this while allowing the less-privileged majority of mankind to carry on a while longer.

　Daunting to say the least. But we scarcely have a choice. “Taiwan is a small place,” Professor Chen (陳鎮東教授) remarked towards the end, “we have nowhere to run.”

關於作者
楊為植。國際科學理事會 （International Council for Science) 會長特別助理。從小留學，旅居歐洲及美國。美國佛萊契學院 (The Fletcher School) 公共政策碩士，曾任職於國際發展組織及政策智庫，研究多項國際議題。

(本文徵求志工翻譯成中文，歡迎將您的譯本寄至 lowestC@gmail.com，文經採用將送您台達LED節能燈泡)

國家公園 擋不住暖化

　圖／氣候異常漸成常態，也導致植物生理時鐘大亂，未來陽明山上櫻花盛開時間或將更難掌握，也將影響與採花相關的生物鍊。(照片由 Chris Chan 分享於Flickr)
　文／柯佳吟(台達電子文教基金會特聘博士後研究員)

　最新一期的自然(Nature)期刊，以一個驚悚的標題:「野生世界的結束( The end of the wild )」開啟2011年人類對全球暖化的省思－氣候變遷使得國家公園的未來，變得和過去不一樣了，那麼，國家公園會變成甚麼樣呢?

　的確，你能夠想像陽明山國家公園變了個樣嗎?櫻花季不再是春節後全家出遊的好選擇，而是在春節前? 那些我們曾經自豪地蟲鳴鳥唱，熟悉的旋律，因為氣候變遷讓牠們不得已必須搬了家，然後熟悉的旋律改變了……或是你能想像，以後我們都需要爬到好幾千呎高的玉山山脊上，才可以看到更多形形色色的動植物們嗎?
##CONTINUE##
自然保留區 倍受威脅
　美國國家公園管理局局長喬恩賈維斯(Jon Jarvis)在文章中即提到:「氣候變遷是我們所經歷過對國家公園完整性最大的威脅!」。越來越多的國家公園管理員以及四面八方的研究人員投入氣候變遷下對國家公園內地景 (landscape)改變的研究，然而無法戰勝氣候的巨大改變，將難以達成”保留一塊土地的原始自然狀態”的目標，最終我們可能不得不棄守國家公園的初衷。

　文中以全美最著名，也是全美第一座國家公園－黃石國家公園(Yellowstone)為例，1872年黃石國家公園剛成立時，在約莫90萬公頃的園區內遍布高原地貌，潺潺河流越過，星羅棋布的地熱盆地與噴泉鑲嵌在高原各處，每一個探訪者都可能在下一個轉彎處，不經意遇見野牛與狼。它是個「自然」的土地，也在被賦予國家公園身分的同時，被宣誓要保護與永遠維持它的這份 「自然」。

　然而，這些美景就在20世紀起開始變得困難，溫暖的氣候助長樹害蟲的滋長，森林大火也變得經常發生，生物族群數量有所調整，整個生態系以及地景被迫改變。黃石國家公園境內你所看到直挺挺的樹，可能已經遭受一種名為”松樹甲蟲(Mountain pine beetle)”咬蝕與挖掘而死亡。過去冬季低於-40°C的氣候可抑制松樹甲蟲的數量，但是近十年來暖冬幫助松樹甲蟲繁衍，進而影響整個針葉樹林，超過一半黃石國家公園內的針葉樹林生態系已受到甲蟲的威脅，其中的10%更是「高度受迫害者」，預期有40%「高度受迫害者」的樹種將會消失。

害蟲數量 因暖化而增加
　雖然在這樣的威脅下，仍有研究團隊發現害蟲數量的增長導致的樹木死亡，使得空地面積增加，間接阻止大火的發生。然而，未來是難以預測的，針葉樹可能可以生長在暖化的氣候下，低海拔的物種也可能遷移到高海拔以面對上升的溫度，眾多的生態與環境研究學者嘗試透過多種的模式找出可能變化的趨勢，只是不到那一刻，我們仍舊無法確知生態系將如何改變。

　正因為糾纏在國家公園初衷與氣候變遷改變了生態系的挑戰下，美國國家公園管理者正為如何進行適當的調適策略傷透腦筋，是要放任國家公園隨著暖化自行改變?還是必須以人為強烈干涉的介入並保持原有的狀態呢?

　前者，必須創造一個有利於改變的環境給眾多生物們。現在所謂的「廊道(corridor)」建立，就是以「自然」為力量進行改變，將國家公園與其他自然地區串連起來，當串連的區域越大時，動植物便有更大的空間去調適生活形態以及棲地利用。為了維持這些生態廊道，美國國家公園管理局於2009年9月時加入「地景保護合作社(Landscape Conservation Cooperatives)」，破除原先單一管理與保護的國家公園或保護區制，取而代之的是聯邦與州政府機構、大學內的科學家與其他有關單位共同管理與維護之。

　後者，似乎在已經改變中的生態系中不得不進行，但干涉的強度卻是一個最大的難題。目前為了保護部分的針葉樹種，科學家透過在黃石國家公園內移植的方式維持樹種的生存，並在樹種周圍的環境創造有利於樹種的植被，使其在該人為區域具有相當的競爭力得以維持樹種數量；此外，科學家也透過於其他區域種植該樹種的方式，希冀在其他的區域可以幫助樹種 「適應」 溫暖的氣候。這兩種方式目前看來似乎都相當的可行。

不再逃避 勇於面對
　但美國國家公園管理局局長喬恩賈維斯(Jon Jarvis)建議，將物種移出其原先生長的區域現在仍未是時候，他說:重點是人類已經願意去面對氣候變遷的議題，不再害怕談論氣候變遷的衝擊，那麼我們就有能力去改善物種在原始生存區域的問題與威脅……。

　我們早已知道氣候變遷不再只是單純氣候的事或是人類的事，眾多的地景地貌與生態在不經意間逐漸地的改變，經濟發展與各項氣候變遷條約議定的同時，我們 「必須」與「一定」要做些甚麼，生態系或許已經等不及那些過長的討論以及爭論。

作者簡介
柯佳吟，台大生態學與演化生物學研究所博士，為已故氣候學者史奈德(Prof. Stephen H.Schneider)與其遺孀泰瑞茹(Prof. Terry L.Root)共同指導的學生，曾於史丹佛大學研修氣候變遷調適與減緩策略，以及生態系服務等議題。目前正處博士後研究期間，希冀透過國際合作方式，多面向探討氣候變遷議題。

【延伸閱讀】
《氣候變遷衝擊！全球保護區如何因應？》謝雯凱 4-Jan-11 環境資訊中心

綠色嘻哈新勢力 唱出低碳饒舌歌

　圖／拷秋勤的一曲「逆天」，唱出年輕人對暖化後未來的憂慮(照片由波爾特曼上傳至Flickr共享)
　文／劉仲恩(台達電子文教基金會低碳生活部落格志工寫手群)

　嘻哈跟低碳能有什麼交集嗎？

　嘻哈樂(Hip Hop)本來是美國黑人對於社會壓迫的宣洩管道，大家的刻板印象可能來自於那些充斥著黑幫、毒品、性與暴力的MV。其實嘻哈歌手大多不是幫派大哥，也有為數不少的人努力用嘻哈樂來唱出社會問題，試圖改造這個世界。近年來，隨著地球環境日益惡化，許多嘻哈歌手也把焦點轉向環境議題，一股綠色嘻哈新勢力正在萌芽。
##CONTINUE##
綠色街頭 嘻哈環保
　美國Living on Earth公共電台特別報導了幾個引領這個風潮的歌手。”Doo Dat”住在加州某個緊鄰煉油廠的社區，因為空氣與水被污染，社區裡的人氣喘與罹癌的比例都特別高，他寫了一首”The Dream Reborn”喚醒大家的環保意識，也響應歐巴馬的綠領新政，他驕傲地唱到”My president is black, but he’s going green.”(我的總統是黑的，但是他要變成綠的)。此外，”Dr. Octagon”有一首悼亡樹木的饒舌歌，”Dead Prez”鼓勵大家改吃素食吃出健康，” Trunk Boiz”歌頌了社區裡的創意腳踏車，每首歌都創意十足，迥異於正經八百的環保說教。

　這股綠色潮流正在向下紮根，在美國，黑人以及其他少數族裔常常在環境運動中缺席，為了改變這個現狀，在舊金山深耕的環保團體Green for All和推廣公益嘻哈的組織Hip Hop Caucus聯手推出了”Green the Block”(綠色街頭)的活動，特別利用嘻哈音樂傳達綠色低碳的概念，將環保帶進貧窮的黑人社區，讓原本看似專屬中產階級白人的環保訴求，與草根的黑人街頭文化完美結合。

　美國黑人的例子離台灣有一段不小的距離，把鏡頭轉回台灣，其實我們的本土綠色嘻哈跟美國流行零時差。

周杰倫拷秋勤 本土綠嘻哈
　細心的歌迷可能會想到，在天王歌手周杰倫2003年發行的《葉惠美》專輯中有一首「梯田」，這首比較冷門的非主打歌很可能是華語歌壇裡最早的綠色嘻哈歌曲。在這首歌裡，周杰倫自行作曲填詞，唱出他對家鄉梯田景觀消逝的傷感。

因地制宜綜合利用　利用對還是不對
自私的人類　狼不狼狽　破壞自然的生態
會不會很累　你說為了藝術
要砍下一棵樹　這樣對還是不對

你說為了裝飾　請問干我啥事
是不是只能用相機紀錄自然
那相片　給下一代　給下一代回味
可憐可悲　森林綠地都已成紀錄片

　標榜正港台灣味唸歌的「拷秋勤」，更把綠色嘻哈的精神發揚光大，在「逆天」一曲之中，他們用歌詞喚醒大家對全球暖化的的重視：

地球圈的環保生態受到長期的破壞
溫室效應 極端現象 一個個接踵而來
不明的熱浪 威力一年比一年還強
不敢想 不敢望 我不能接受這現象
……
照片一張又一張 看來風景多漂亮
但是有誰知道 背後多麼難以想像
大雨沖刷土石流 淹蓋綠色的寶島
難道還要我們期待明天會更好

　在「灰色海岸線」一曲之中，他們用國語、閩南語、客家話、和達悟語四聲道，唱出對台灣海洋環境的關懷：

珊瑚在白化 海洋生物起了變化
你不怕你不怕 一切都是自然變化
看到了嗎 海洋生態每況愈下
我害怕我害怕 難道真的沒有辦法

我試著寫下 用歌詞提醒大家
曾經美麗的海洋他正在掙扎
海天一色 是存在課本中的顏色
黃色黑色垃圾 卻變成三種花色

　仔細聆聽這些充滿節拍的音樂，我們聽見了對地球的深深情感。誰說環保訴求都很嚴肅？低碳生活可以動感十足，節能減碳也能創意無限，讓我們期待這股綠色嘻哈新勢力帶給我們更多的驚喜與感動。
--
補充1：在嘻哈音樂之外，台灣創作力豐沛的樂壇從來不缺少環保訴求的聲音，1976樂團用北極熊「努特」說了有關全球暖化的故事；929樂團在「貢寮你好嗎？」一曲中大聲唱著「我們不要核電廠」；林生祥和之前的交工樂隊更是美濃反水庫運動中的老前輩，這些都是值得細細品味的好音樂。

補充2：關於台灣的Hip Hop界出過跟環境或暖化有關的歌曲，還有2005年海洋音樂祭評審團大獎得主城市之光。他們首張專輯中，所收錄的『感恩』那首歌曲，既是談環境問題。http://www.eslite.com/product.aspx?pgid=1004166501626158。(趙家緯 Facebook 留言, 2011.01.03)

關於作者
劉仲恩，台大化工系畢業，耶魯大學環境管理與經濟雙碩士，現就讀於美國威斯康辛大學社會學博士班。喜歡遊山玩水背包旅行，樂於學習新文化，從工程背景轉了一大圈走到社會科學，目前研究環境社會學，關心國際碳交易市場的發展。

【延伸閱讀】
PRI’s Living on Earth: Hip Hop for the environment
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=10-P13-00029&segmentID=7
Green the Block
http://greentheblock.net/
新世代音樂人的環保主張：
http://e-info.org.tw/node/39788