關於 汽車廢氣排放英文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

《網友來函照刊》

李老師您好！

敝姓O，這是我女兒的臉書
個人算是老車的愛好者，目前住在台北，好友都叫我英文名OO

我可以幫忙把老車立法等等構想資料，提供給委員助理。

電動車圖利特定對象，應該算是另一個議題，但是跟老車保存息息相關，有資料也可以一併提供。

另外，老車對環境衝擊評估，國外法規等等，資料整理的方式可能就要請教老師。

老車保存問題，牽涉的層面甚廣。如果老師有更好切入的方法或意見，也可以直接提出來

個人野人獻曝，如果老師覺得這個管道有幫助，再麻煩跟我聯絡

................................

老車事務所：
謝謝您的關心，
台灣古董車的法案，僅限汽車，
而且現在法案躺在交通部好些年了，
如果立委有興趣處理，
再麻煩您牽個線，
先說明一下，
我個人沒有什麼實力，所以沒有實質的利益可以提供給立委。
再次感謝您的來信。

.......................

李老師您好！

現在就是切入點的問題。

我看最近李老師的文章，重點放在骨董車立法，3月也有蔡立委要召開公聽會。

我個人的角色先定位在，轉交資料和之後了解立委的態度和作法

為避免多頭馬車，我先提供這條管道，李老師如果覺得有幫助，隨時跟我聯絡

這個世界其實是灰色的，社會正義，立委利益，或是兩者都有，有時就是要靠妥協和平衡了！

老師跟我的想法應該差不多，我們唯一可以提供給立委的微薄利益，應該就是少數的支持選票，和立委個人對文化保存的自我認知和政績。

.............................

老車事務所：
是！
還是等蔡立委的公聽會忙完再說！
非常感謝您的關切。
.................................

老車事務所：
如果後續需要立委的幫忙，
依您之見，
哪位立委比較有可能伸出援手？

...........................

李老師
我認識的是立委的助理，不過在交通委員會的是另一位立委。

至於老師說的哪一位立委比較有可能伸出援手，我的看法是這樣

如果把立法院比喻成戰場，立委只是扣板機那個人；情報蒐集，準備彈藥，目標瞄準，都是幕後助理和幕僚。

如果立委只是口頭上願意伸出援手，沒有彈藥、作戰計畫、瞄準目標，只是單純扣板機，常常就只是一陣閃光的空包彈，喊爽而已。

所以我們可以想想我們的目標，和切入點在哪裡，也就是我們先確定有那些彈藥，目標是甚麼，交給立委助理評估可行性，最後再由願意幫忙的立委扣下板機

個人覺得"爭取古董車立法加入機車部分"可能是目前最容易達到的目標，也是老車躲過排氣環保和車輛使用年限，雙重夾殺之下的最後生存之道，老師可以思考一下。

................................

老車事務所：
上次開會結論是環保署不同意。

...................................

是的，老師也說到最重要的的重點

也許訴求可以先鎖定這兩點

1. 起碼保持現在現行有牌老車的檢驗底線，(不提高排氣標準，不限制使用年限...)

2.古董車法儘快通過，並納入機車(最後一道防火牆，起碼在特定日期可以騎乘上路)。
但是古董車法在所有待審的法規裡面，順序應該是排很後面的，不管是立委或是民眾的看法

有幾個現實情況，可能真的不得不面對

1.電動車是不可擋的趨勢。為了保存老車，把電動車視為敵人，其實沒有幫助。
電動車圖利特定對象，也是另一個議題，跟保存老車綁在一起，徒增討論的複雜性

2.二行程社會觀感很難提升，沒有二行程車輛的民眾支持汰換政策的比例很高，一般二行程車主反對的力道其實也沒有很強，只剩二衝愛好者和Vespa古董車車主苦撐，似乎已經走到絕路，唯一的路可能就剩老師提的古董車法規。

3.完稅車掛牌上路，或是納入古董車法規依法上路，是最困難的。
任何會增加排放源的法規，環保署同意的機會非常低(連民眾接受度最高的蒸汽火車至今都無法上路)。

法規要通過，就是要協商，協商就是妥協，妥協就是無法保障某些人的權益，這個很殘酷也很現實。
推動老車保存和立法很辛苦，也常被誤解，只能說老師辛苦了！

....................

老車事務所：
您的見解很精闢，
句句都說到重點，
網路上相關討論很少，
多半是罵一兩聲就沒下文了，

我想將您的文章PO到老車事務所，

您OK嗎？

...................................

個人的淺見，如果老師覺得有幫助，我也樂於讓大家一起正面思考
近日勞基法抗爭激烈，尚未有定論。
議事槌敲下的那一刻，有人會暫時鬆口氣，也有人會滿腔悲憤。
古董車即使將來有幸法規通過，我想情況也差不多。

另外請教老師，如果政府提高老車排氣標準，或是限制車輛使用年限，並述及既往，是根據那一項法令？

.....................................

老車事務所：
沒有根據
所以要訂定新法

................

https://enews.epa.gov.tw/enews/fact_Newsdetail.asp…

https://www.mvdis.gov.tw/webMvdisLaw/LawArticle.aspx…

老師您看上述法條，空汙防制法是母法，排放標準是依照母法訂定的子法，

我的重點就是，爭取空汙防制法的排除條款，或是但書，能不能可以直接避開環保署？
這樣會不會比立新的法(古董車專法)，要容易進入討論程序？

..................................

老車事務所：古董車的廢氣排放，本應不屬於環保署管轄範圍，

其他各國皆然，包括鄰近的香港、新加坡。

台灣的環保署還有其他重要功能。

............................

待續............

【臭氧的新威脅猶勝PM2.5
Move Over, PM2.5; Ozone is the New Black】

(myhealthbeijing.com, Jul. 21, 2015) —by Richard Saint Cyr MD

Just when I was getting hopeful about the dramatic improvement this year in Beijing’s PM2.5 levels, along comes a summer deluge of local press coverage about what they’re claiming is air pollution’s number two threat: ground-level ozone. Recent press reports and a campaign by the China National Environmental Monitoring Center have highlighted the fact that on some hot, sunny days this summer, the worst pollutant has been ozone and not the usual PM2.5. But is ozone really as much a threat to our health as the well-documented PM2.5? And if so, do our usual masks and indoor air purifiers help in any way?
就在我才對北京今年上半年的細懸浮微粒污染物(PM2.5)的污染指數有顯著改善此剛剛懷有希望的同時，就讀到一波接連其後的媒體報導提及的空氣中主要威脅的第二順位——也就是地表臭氧。（備註：地表臭氧的污染主要是來自於汽車廢氣裡的氧化物、工廠廢氣以及含有化學物質的煙霧與陽光進行的化學反應。）最近的媒體報導和中國國家環境監測中心所做的調查都明確地指出，這個夏天裡一些炎熱且陽光照射強的日子裡，指數最高的污染物往往是臭氧，而不是平常的PM2.5。不過，臭氧真的會比已被充分研究過的PM2.5更會對人體健康產生危害嗎？如果是的話，我們平時戴的口罩和室內的空氣濾清器會有任何防護的作用嗎？

Most of us know ozone when discussing global warming, as the thinning ozone layer in our upper atmosphere protects us here on the ground. But at ground level, ozone is quite destructive to our lungs, causing both immediate and long-term harm as well as increased death rates. Ozone levels are always highest during sunny summer afternoons, as the sun’s ultraviolet light creates ozone from airborne chemicals, especially from vehicle exhaust — most notoriously from old diesel trucks spewing out their toxic cocktail of fumes. The World Health Organization’s Air Quality Guidelines from 2005 recommend safest ozone levels under 100 ug/m3 (using 8-hour exposure limits), while over 160 ug/ m3 would be considered unhealthy for vulnerable people such as children and people with lung disease, and over 240 ug/ m3 especially unhealthy to all people. China’s MEP guidelines follow the WHO’s interim target of 160 ug/ m3, while the US EPA’s AQI “green zone” is under 120 ug/ m3. During this week’s heat wave in Beijing, afternoon ozone regularly peaked over all three thresholds, commonly over 200 ug/ m3 and peaking at 299 ug/ m3. The Los Angeles area, most polluted in the USA, still regularly has ozone days over 200 ug/ m3 but is far better than a few decades ago when levels frequently hit over 400 ug/ m3. So while ozone levels in Beijing aren’t comparatively as high as PM2.5 is, certainly they are frequently at levels that would be considered unhealthy.
我們當中大部分人都通過關於全球暖化的討論而對臭氧有所了解。正是由於位於高大氣層中日漸稀薄的臭氧層，我們才免於太陽紫外線輻射的危害。但是在地表附近，臭氧對我們的肺十分具有破壞性，它不僅會導致短期與長期的危害，還會提高死亡率。臭氧的濃度總是在夏天陽光充足的下午達到最高值，因為此時太陽釋放出的紫外線與空氣中的化學物質—特別是那些臭名遠播的舊式柴油卡車所排放的毒氣—產生的反應最活躍。世界衛生組織在2005年公布的空氣品質參考指數中，所建議的安全臭氧濃度應為每立方公尺低於100微克（以暴露在污染環境下8小時為極限）。若臭氧濃度高於每立方公尺160微克，則會對身體健康較為虛弱的小孩和肺病患者產生不良影響。若臭氧濃度高於每立方公尺240微克，則會對所有人都產生危害。中國環境保護局的參考指數是依循了世界衛生組織每立方公尺160微克的暫定目標，而美國環境保護署的空氣品質指數將安全的「綠色區域」定為在每立方公尺120微克以下。北京7月中旬的熱浪中，下午的臭氧濃度經常突破以上所述的三個門檻—一般都在每立方公尺200微克以上，最高達到每立方公尺299微克。在美國的洛杉磯—長期以來作為美國臭氧污染最嚴重的城市—經常有臭氧濃度超過每立方公尺200微克的日子，但已經比幾十年前經常超過每立方公尺400微克的臭氧濃度好得多。所以說，北京的臭氧濃度雖然相比之下沒有PM2.5濃度危險（2014年北京PM2.5濃度的平均值是每立方公尺86微克，比洛杉磯的每立方公尺18微克高很多），但是經常處於不健康的範圍內。

In terms of symptoms, ozone seems to cause much more immediate effects than PM2.5 does. You may have noticed while outside during this hot summer that your eyes sting, your head pounds, your throat burns, you cough and feel a bit short of breath. I’ve certainly had such symptoms this summer during some of my bike rides to my clinic, especially returning home early evening, which is usually when ozone peaks. I’m fortunate that I haven’t had more serious symptoms such as severe asthma flares, but I definitely worry about children’s exposure to ozone, especially those with asthma who live near busy roads in sunny places. Healthy children are also at risk; one sobering study in 2002 followed a group of healthy students around smoggy southern California, and those who spent the most hours outside playing sports had a three-fold increased risk of developing asthma from ozone exposure, compared to those who mostly stayed indoors.
就可能引發的症狀來說，臭氧似乎比PM2.5更快會造成不適的身體反應。當你在炎炎夏日裡外出時，可能會發現眼睛刺痛、頭會抽痛、喉嚨燥熱，你會咳嗽並感覺有點喘不過氣。就我個人而言，我在騎車去診所的路上有時確實為這些症狀所困擾，尤其是在傍晚的下班臭氧分布濃度高峰期間。幸運的是，我還沒有出現像是氣喘發作那樣更嚴重的症狀，不過我的確十分擔心臭氧對兒童的影響，特別是那些住在陽光充足而車水馬龍的大街旁且患有氣喘的孩子們。不僅如此，健康的兒童們也籠罩於危險之中。有一項2002年所做的研究著實發人深省，因為其調查了一群居住在霾霧籠罩的南加州的健康兒童。因暴露在臭氧污染的環境下，那些戶外體育運動時間長的兒童得到氣喘的機率是大部分時間留在室內的兒童的三倍之多。

But which pollutant is truly more serious, PM2.5 or ozone? Air pollution action plans for schools (such as the one below) across the USA rank PM2.5 and ozone as equally dangerous pollutants for children, and an AQI over 200 for either PM2.5 or ozone (equivalent to 8-hour ozone of 115 ppb, or 225 ug/ m3) would warrant all children staying indoors; for those with asthma, a stricter cutoff AQI of 100-150 could be even more protective.
但是哪一種污染物更嚴重呢，是PM2.5還是臭氧？美國為學校制定的空氣污染行動方案將PM2.5和臭氧列為對兒童同等危險的污染物。無論PM2.5還是臭氧，只要空氣品質指數超過200（相當於8小時暴露下，臭氧濃度達每立方公尺225微克），學校就需要讓所有孩子待在室內。對於有氣喘的兒童來說，該行動方案則建議，更嚴格的空氣污染指數的限制範圍要限縮在100至150之間。

But does any of this mean we really should change our behavior here in Beijing, any differently than we already act right now with PM2.5? I’m honestly not too convinced; while the WHO Guidelines and a more recent US EPA review do mention data showing increased mortality from higher ozone, and quite strong connections with lung disease, the long-term data just isn’t as impressive to me as it is for PM2.5. For example, PM2.5 clearly causes cancers, and is officially on the WHO’s list of carcinogens, while ozone’s data shows no strong correlation to cancers. Also, PM2.5’s direct damage to the heart is extremely well documented, while data for ozone is far less certain of a connection.
但是這些是否說明我們在北京真的應該改變一下生活習慣了？我們是否應該採取與現在因應PM2.5不同的對策來對付臭氧？說實話，我並不認為我們需要針對臭氧做出相應的改變。儘管世界衛生組織的空氣品質參考指數與美國環境保護署於近期發佈的一項調查顯示，臭氧污染與致死率以及肺病發生率均成正相關，可是在我看來，關於臭氧的長期數據並沒有像PM2.5那樣的令人憂心。例如，PM2.5很明顯地會導致癌症，並正式出現在世界衛生組織的致癌物名單上，然而關於臭氧的數據並沒顯示出其與癌症有很強的關聯性。另外，PM2.5對心臟的直接破壞已經被非常全面地記錄下來，而關於臭氧的數據卻尚未有如此確定的關聯。

But while ozone’s long-term risks may be less than PM2.5, short-term symptoms seem to affect all of us much more easily, especially right now during summer. Perhaps in this case any one of us who is at higher risk, or who commutes in high ozone areas — that includes anyone sitting on a bus, taxi or subway — could consider an anti-ozone mask, especially if you’ve already noticed symptoms. Also, anyone who feels symptoms when ozone is high, even if you are young and healthy, should certainly consider using an anti-ozone mask.
不過，雖然從長期看來臭氧並沒有PM2.5那麼危險，它所誘發的短期症狀卻更容易影響我們每一個人，特別是現在正值夏季。具有高風險呼吸道疾病的人們或是在臭氧濃度較高環境下通勤的人們—包含了乘坐公車、計程車還是地鐵的人—都應該要考慮佩戴防臭氧的口罩，尤其是那些已經有發現呼吸道症狀的人。一旦你感覺到高濃度地表臭氧所導致的症狀時，就算你既年輕又健康，也應該考慮佩戴防臭氧的口罩。

But the main problem here is that most masks’ filter material against PM2.5 is quite impotent against the far smaller ozone molecules, reducing ozone by only one-third. The only way to effectively remove ozone via a mask is to add a layer of carbon to the mask. These specialized anti-ozone masks using carbon were initially designed especially for welders, not consumers. Welding is a particularly dangerous occupation as the heat can create dangerously high levels of ozone (over 1,200 parts per billion, more than 12 times the US OSHA standard), and welders have much higher rates of lung disease than the average population, including asthma. Based on this specialized technology, a few consumer-level carbon masks are available. Studies have shown that disposable masks with carbon (in this case, the 3M 9913, also 90% effective against PM2.5), if fitted properly, can eliminate up to 98% of ozone, which I feel is quite impressive. Even more importantly, lung function was stable with the carbon mask but decreased with the no-carbon mask. After 40 hours of use, the carbon filter still worked perfectly, which means a person like myself could wear these masks for at least a couple of weeks of normal commuting activity, and simply throw them away once they get too dirty — or the rubber strap breaks, which usually happens first.
但是問題在於，大多數口罩中針對PM2.5的不含碳過濾材質對更為微小的臭氧分子能發揮的作用相當有限，因為這類過濾材質只能除去三分之一的臭氧。用口罩去除臭氧的唯一有效辦法就是在其中加一層碳。此類特製的防臭氧口罩最初是為焊接工人特別設計的，而不是針對普通消費者。焊接是一個格外危險的職業，因為焊接時的高溫可以產生極高濃度的臭氧，其濃度超出美國職業安全與健康署所訂定標準的12倍多。因此，焊接工人的肺病（包括氣喘）發生率要遠高於一般人。市面上出現了幾款利用這種特殊技術的含碳口罩。以上的研究和另外一個更新的研究表明，含碳的可拋棄式口罩—如對PM2.5有90%功效的3M 9913型—可以在正確使用的情況下去除98%的臭氧。我認為這還是很能發揮保護效果的。更重要的是，研究還顯示，含碳口罩使肺功能穩定，不含碳口罩則使肺功能下降。此外，含碳口罩的碳層經過40小時的使用之後，依然可以很有效地過濾雜質。這意味着像我一樣的上班族可以在上下班時戴上這類口罩，每個口罩至少可以使用兩星期。在用髒了之後，或者在大多數情況下都是彈性綁帶先斷了之後，就可以扔掉。

Ozone inside a house usually is only 40-50% as much as outdoors, but since we all spend much more time indoors than out, it’s estimated that 25-60% of our total exposure to ozone comes from indoors. Fortunately, the answer to this problem is one you’re probably already taking care of: an indoor air purifier. You may have noticed that most of the decent indoor air purifiers already include a carbon filter along with a true HEPA filter which eliminates PM2.5. Ozone indoors is still probably a less serious hazard to most of us than PM2.5, as well as from dangerous gases like benzene and formaldehyde, which causes cancer. These and other volatile gases are frequently elevated in newly renovated Chinese apartments with poorly made furniture, walls and flooring. The carbon filters can work extremely well against ozone as well as all of these gases.
室內的臭氧污染一般只有室外污染程度的40%到50%，可是由於我們在室內的時間比在室外的時間要長很多，一個研究的估算顯示，我們接觸到的25%至60%的臭氧都是來自於室內。幸運的是，解決這個問題的辦法已經被我們當中的很多人採納—買一個空氣濾清器。你也許已經發現，品質較好的空氣濾清器已經包含了一層活性碳過濾網以及一層HEPA過濾網，而這兩者都能除去PM2.5。室內的臭氧並沒有像PM2.5以及致癌的甲苯、甲醛氣體一樣危險。在中國新裝修的房子中，由於成本較低的家具、牆和地板的存在，類似的揮發性氣體的濃度經常居高不下。空氣濾清器的碳過濾層可以非常有效地去除臭氧和這些揮發性氣體。

I recently had pretty bad asthma attacks, which are now resolved, but I’m still quite nervous about recurrence. So while I’m relieved that I haven’t had any asthma spells this summer, all this recent press about ozone has empowered me to finally get up to speed on ozone research. I’ve decided that the only life change I needed to make was to use a carbon mask (combined with N95) during bad ozone days when commuting to work. Now when I glance at my pollution app on my mobile phone, I will look at ozone concentration as well as PM2.5. Otherwise, I’m already safe at home as my indoor air purifiers already include both carbon and HEPA filters.
我最近有幾次嚴重的氣喘發作，雖然現在已經恢復，但是我對病情復發還是感到緊張。所以在我於這個夏天中慶幸尚未受到氣喘影響的同時，最近媒體關於臭氧的一系列報導也促使我有趕緊加快腳步來做臭氧的研究。我已經決定，唯一需要的改變就是要在臭氧濃度高的日子裡配戴含碳口罩（也同時含有N95材料）上下班。現在每當我打開顯示污染指數的手機程式的時候，除了看PM2.5的濃度以外，我也會看一眼臭氧的濃度。要不然，我在家裡其實已經夠安全的了，因為家裡的室內空氣濾清器就有活性碳和HEPA過濾層。

But I’m also more cautious this summer with my children and asthmatic patients in clinic, making sure they’re also more aware of ozone’s specific threats to them on these hot sunny days. As usual, living healthy in Beijing always requires a combination of common sense and education on public health issues. And with ozone, just like PM2.5, a bit of the same preventive strategies should keep most of us healthy.
在這個夏天裡，我也對兒童和得氣喘的病人格外關注，我要確保他們更加了解炎熱的天氣裡，臭氧會對他們的身體造成什麼樣的威脅。與往常一樣，在北京健康地生活需要普通常識與公共健康議題教育的結合。而對於防範臭氧來說，採用和針對PM2.5一樣的預防措施應該就可以讓大部分的人們保持健康了。

#高雄人 #學習英文 請找 多益達人 林立英文

#按讚和分享給林立老師鼓勵吧^^

美國環保署署長Lisa P. Jackson的影片致詞 - 播放於台美潔淨能源論壇(2011 US-Taiwn Clean Energy Forum)。中英文全文如下:

Hello, this is EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

Greetings from Washington D.C. It is my pleasure to help open the U.S.-Taiwan Clean Energy Forum in Taipei and to welcome all of those who share my goal of spurring the development of newer, cleaner sources of energy to help secure our future.

For more than 40 years, we have been able to strengthen health and environmental protections, and expand economic opportunity to billions of people around the globe.

Today our planet faces some of the most severe economic and environmental challenges in decades. Parents across the US and around the world are concerned that the world we leave to our children and grandchildren will be a very different place than the one we know today. We must find ways to address issues like depleting energy resources and a changing climate in ways that maintain the history of improvement for our environment and our economy.

Already, governments are supporting clean energy innovation and implementation, while businesses invest in energy-efficient and sustainable strategies to reduce emissions and cut costs.

No individual country or company is responsible for all of the challenges we face. And no one acting alone will be able to find a solution to challenges that affect our entire planet. That’s why EPA is working to engage local communities, multi-national companies and international partners to take steps that promote a greener, cleaner economy.

Over the past two years, we've partnered with UNEP and automobile companies through the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles. And we've expanded the Renewable Fuels Standard, targeting our government resources toward energy-efficiency that can cut costs and reduce pollution.

We've also expanded our work with the private sector through the Green Power Partnership and Combined Heat and Power Partnership programs -- both of which support cost-effective and innovative clean energy technology. In the US, we're encouraging the adoption of a goal for combined heat and power generation to comprise 20 percent of our energy by 2030.

While significantly cutting emissions, that level of progress could also spark an estimated $234 billion in investments and create nearly 1 million jobs throughout the country. Those potential environmental and economic benefits are not exclusive to the US - and we are encouraged to hear our partners in Asia exploring the implementation of similar strategies.

We are also working to expand innovative solutions like green infrastructure. Green infrastructure techniques have the potential to protect clean water and cut energy consumption, saving money and protecting health and the environment. Smarter, greener planning often costs less than traditional methods, and by fostering healthier communities, they can attract new businesses and increase property values.

40 years of history shows that we can increase economic opportunity and expand environmental protection at the same time. There is no reason we can't continue that history today. By bringing together local and national governments, international institutions, business leaders and civil society, we can seize opportunities for a green, prosperous future for our individual nations, and our entire planet.

大家好，我是美國環保署署長 Lisa P. Jackson。

在此為您致上來自美國華府的問候。本人非常榮幸能夠受邀為於台北舉辦的台美潔淨能源論壇揭開序幕，並且歡迎各位和我一同加入促進新潔淨能源發展的行列，讓我們一起創造更美好的未來。

超過40年來，我們一直致力於促進民眾健康與環境保護，並且為全球數十億人口拓展更多的經濟商機。

現在我們的地球遭受到了數十年以來最嚴重的經濟和環保挑戰。全美國與全世界的家長也都擔心我們留給後代子孫的世界將會和今日我們所熟悉的世界大大不同。我們必須找到解決的方法，來因應像是能源耗竭和氣候變遷這類的挑戰，才能夠一如往常地持續促進環境和經濟的提升與發展。

全球各國政府都已經開始支持潔淨能源的創新與實施，企業也著手投資於節能與永續的策略來減少廢氣排放和降低成本。

對於我們眼前所面對的挑戰，沒有一個國家或企業能夠獨力承擔所有的責任。也沒有一個人能夠獨力解決這些影響我們整個地球的挑戰。這就是為什麼美國環保署致力於促進當地社群、跨國企業和國際合作夥伴的共襄盛舉，推動更環保、更潔淨的經濟發展。

在過去兩年以來，我們與UNEP和汽車產業透過「潔淨能源與車輛合作夥伴計畫(Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles)合作。我們也拓展了再生能源標準(Renewable Fuels Standard)，希冀讓政府的資源能做更符合能源效率的運用，進而降低成本與減少污染。

我們也透過了綠色能源合作夥伴計畫(Green Power Partnership)和熱能與電力綜合合作夥伴計畫(Combined Heat and Power Partnership)來拓展與私部門之間的合作—這兩個計畫的宗旨都在於支持具成本效益與創新的潔淨能源科技發展。在美國，我們正在推動一個目標，希冀能在2030年之前，將熱能與發電所佔能源的比例提升到20%。

在大幅減少碳排放的同時，這樣的進展也將帶動預計達到23.4億美元的投資，並且在全美各地創造將近100萬個工作機會。這些潛在的環保和經濟效益不只侷限在美國—我們也非常高興聽到我們在亞洲的合作夥伴也正研擬實施類似的策略。

另外，我們也正努力拓展其他的創新解決方案，例如綠色基礎建設。綠色基礎建設的技術有望能夠保障水源潔淨，並且減少能源的消耗，節省成本，並且有益於民眾健康與環境保護。更具智慧、更環保的規劃通常比傳統的方式更具經濟效益，透過發展更健康的社區，這些規劃措施也將能夠吸引企業的進駐，並且促進房地產增值。

40 年的歷史證明了我們可以讓增加商機和促進環保這兩項目標並行不悖。我們沒有理由不能延續這樣的歷史紀錄。透過結合地方和中央政府、國際組織、企業領袖和公民社會的力量，我們將可以掌握契機，為個別國家，乃至於整個地球創造更環保，更繁盛的未來。