馬爾騰·吉倫，萊昂內(nèi)爾·戴維列格/Maarten Gielen, Lionel Devlieger路培 譯/Translated by LU Pei

小區(qū)域可持續(xù)發(fā)展：2013奧斯陸建筑三年展初探

馬爾騰·吉倫，萊昂內(nèi)爾·戴維列格/Maarten Gielen, Lionel Devlieger路培 譯/Translated by LU Pei

當(dāng)今世界是不可持續(xù)的，因?yàn)榈厍蛸Y源的更新能力不及全球資源的消耗速度。世間萬(wàn)物彼此相關(guān)，不可控制：所有的人類活動(dòng)都會(huì)在地球上的某個(gè)地方產(chǎn)生不可預(yù)期的影響。一處的善舉往往會(huì)給其他地方帶來(lái)麻煩。在這種情況下，是否仍然可以提出可持續(xù)發(fā)展的要求？小區(qū)域可持續(xù)發(fā)展對(duì)此給出了肯定的回答，并在你所認(rèn)為的“可持續(xù)發(fā)展”的周邊劃定概念的邊界，當(dāng)你將邊界固定，對(duì)此給予接受，也就意味著你站在了政治的立場(chǎng)上。

建筑，城市規(guī)劃，可持續(xù)發(fā)展，對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的評(píng)估，布倫特蘭報(bào)告

在布倫特蘭報(bào)告“我們共同的未來(lái)”中，對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展做了如下的定義，即處理當(dāng)今之事必須尊重明日之需求。但這份報(bào)告并未提供執(zhí)行這一理念所需遵循的一系列原則。

可以想象的是，一座建筑或一個(gè)總體規(guī)劃方案的主持建筑師，盡管他或她完全認(rèn)同可持續(xù)發(fā)展的理念，卻從未能夠從聯(lián)合國(guó)世界委員會(huì)的一紙報(bào)告中獲得任何有實(shí)際意義的幫助。

因此，在聯(lián)合國(guó)世界委員會(huì)的觀點(diǎn)得到廣泛認(rèn)同的前提下，可持續(xù)發(fā)展的概念已經(jīng)被細(xì)化為社會(huì)組織方面的一系列可供操作的法律規(guī)定、信念和道德準(zhǔn)則。

關(guān)于可持續(xù)發(fā)展的討論一直以來(lái)都集中在對(duì)平衡的追求上，其中，可持續(xù)發(fā)展表現(xiàn)為由生態(tài)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和公平3個(gè)議題所共同形成的交集地帶。它以探尋一種適用于全球范圍內(nèi)萬(wàn)物和諧共存的模式為己任。在如此廣博的定義下，可持續(xù)發(fā)展被理解為所有社會(huì)問(wèn)題的根源，即一個(gè)兼容了所有其他問(wèn)題的問(wèn)題：兩性平等、城市規(guī)劃、稅收政策、建筑物的普遍放開(kāi)、健康、移民政策、掃盲計(jì)劃和遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)，等等。

在某種程度上，上述所有問(wèn)題都與對(duì)平衡的追求有關(guān)：男性與女性之間、集體與個(gè)人之間、新與舊之間。因而，任何一個(gè)重要的社會(huì)議題都被認(rèn)為是人類在探求可持續(xù)發(fā)展的道路上不可分離的組成部分。

希冀通過(guò)氣候政策遏制溫室氣體效應(yīng)，是對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展議題的最新補(bǔ)充。然而，政府間氣候變化專門(mén)委員會(huì)（IPCC）關(guān)于全球性災(zāi)難的預(yù)測(cè)報(bào)告已經(jīng)深刻地改變了這一議題的重要性。除少數(shù)對(duì)此不抱信仰的人士外，氣候變化所帶來(lái)的可預(yù)見(jiàn)的影響，無(wú)論從其規(guī)模還是重要性而言，已促使各方黨派，包括那些歷來(lái)對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展不予關(guān)心的人們，重新審視各自的立場(chǎng)。

如果說(shuō)，某片森林中的某種小動(dòng)物的滅絕，或某家遙遠(yuǎn)的化工廠所發(fā)生的一場(chǎng)災(zāi)難，都已然成為活躍分子口中獨(dú)有的時(shí)髦話題，全球變暖及其導(dǎo)致的永久性災(zāi)難所波及的范圍更加不容忽視。

對(duì)于那些最新加入可持續(xù)發(fā)展事業(yè)的人們而言，減緩氣候變化幾乎是可持續(xù)發(fā)展的同義詞。他們將全球變暖視為亟待解決的問(wèn)題，將可持續(xù)發(fā)展視為解決該問(wèn)題的方式。從此，人們對(duì)具體操作方法的需求與日俱增，希冀借助人類的聰明智慧和雄心，在最短的時(shí)間內(nèi)找到最佳的解決方案，從而為可持續(xù)發(fā)展鋪平道路。這似乎是在說(shuō)，如果我們能提出解決方案，我們便可在最短的時(shí)間內(nèi)提升它們，改變我們的命運(yùn)。

1 MIPIM國(guó)際房地產(chǎn)展會(huì)門(mén)廳，2013年/From the lounge at the Mipim real estate fair in Cannes, 2013（攝影/Photo：Rotor-Benjamin Lasserre）

2 馬斯達(dá)爾城早期效果圖，福斯特+合伙人事務(wù)所，阿布扎比（阿聯(lián)酋），2008年-2023年/Early study of Masdar City by Foster + Partners, Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), 2008-2023（圖片來(lái)源/Ill.： Foster + Partners）

由此，我們可以說(shuō)，可持續(xù)發(fā)展關(guān)乎高水平的管理，而與意識(shí)形態(tài)之間沒(méi)有明確的關(guān)系。判斷一個(gè)解決方案是否可持續(xù)的唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于，看它是否優(yōu)于當(dāng)下的所做所為，而碳排放量是衡量當(dāng)下行為是否可持續(xù)的通常而非一貫的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

馬斯達(dá)爾的城墻之間

我們此次“綠色大門(mén)背后”1）展覽的最大參展作品之一，是由英國(guó)的福斯特+合伙人建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)的馬斯達(dá)爾城市模型。馬斯達(dá)爾被規(guī)劃為一個(gè)沒(méi)有汽車(chē)、只使用太陽(yáng)能和其他可再生能源的城市。希望通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)，形成一個(gè)零碳排放和零廢棄物的系統(tǒng)。如今，這座城市已在阿布扎比國(guó)際機(jī)場(chǎng)附近破土動(dòng)工，并希望從2016年起作為清潔技術(shù)企業(yè)的聚集中心開(kāi)始運(yùn)營(yíng)。英國(guó)環(huán)境組織、阿布扎比未來(lái)能源公司百瑞諾聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人普倫·德賽在一份新聞稿中說(shuō)道：“馬斯達(dá)爾可能是未來(lái)世界最大且最先進(jìn)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展的社區(qū)?！?百瑞諾與世界自然基金會(huì)（WWF）一起，同為這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的環(huán)境顧問(wèn)機(jī)構(gòu)。

英國(guó)奧雅納工程與環(huán)境顧問(wèn)公司的首席建筑師約翰·羅伯茨對(duì)馬斯達(dá)爾城的評(píng)價(jià)是：“在這個(gè)項(xiàng)目中，城市的邊界用城墻劃分，堪稱一個(gè)邊界劃分清晰的優(yōu)秀案例。它擁有6km2相對(duì)適宜的尺度，且目標(biāo)明確，即創(chuàng)建一個(gè)碳中和、零廢棄物的社區(qū)。由于城市邊界的存在，我認(rèn)為他們可以成功。他們無(wú)需介意邊界以外發(fā)生什么，因?yàn)槠?chē)停在城墻之外?！?/p>

在羅伯茨看來(lái)，由于馬斯達(dá)爾城和其周邊不可持續(xù)發(fā)展的環(huán)境相分離，可以被看作是一個(gè)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的小區(qū)域空間。盡管其四周?chē)鷫Φ脑O(shè)計(jì)初衷只是為提高該市的氣候性能，卻成為這一規(guī)劃理念的外在顯現(xiàn)。當(dāng)然，無(wú)論是將馬斯達(dá)爾與其周邊的環(huán)境脫離開(kāi)來(lái)，還是假設(shè)它擁有概念上的自主權(quán)，都只是難以維持的空想。如果沒(méi)有旁邊的阿布扎比機(jī)場(chǎng)，馬斯達(dá)爾恐怕永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)成為核心；如果沒(méi)有水泥廠，它也不可能建成；如果不是由于它所在的地區(qū)盛產(chǎn)石油，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目恐怕從一開(kāi)始就不會(huì)被提出。

然而，馬斯達(dá)爾對(duì)所有這些活動(dòng)所產(chǎn)生的有害影響都不負(fù)有責(zé)任，哪怕是一部分的責(zé)任。當(dāng)馬斯達(dá)爾表明自己的零碳主張時(shí)，僅僅是指城墻之內(nèi)所產(chǎn)生的碳排放。

“沙漠中的新城”是人們對(duì)馬斯達(dá)爾的通常印象，但它更容易被認(rèn)為是對(duì)阿布扎比郊區(qū)的大規(guī)模擴(kuò)充。從概念、經(jīng)濟(jì)和地理位置上講，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目與阿布扎比城市和地區(qū)的現(xiàn)存材料和組織結(jié)構(gòu)都緊密相關(guān)。

人為邊界

如果我們展開(kāi)理論推導(dǎo)，所有“可持續(xù)”的項(xiàng)目在對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的主張中必須有“度”的限制。邏輯如下：

（1）我們生活在一個(gè)不可持續(xù)的世界中。全球變暖是且只是這一事實(shí)的表征之一。

（2）世間萬(wàn)物直接或間接地與其他事物以一種完全不可預(yù)知的方式相互聯(lián)系在一起。

The definition of sustainable development as set out in Our Common Future-better known asThe Brundtland Report-requires that organisation of the present day be done with respect to the needs of tomorrow. But it does not offer a set of principles by which to put that idea into practice.

Imagine the architect in charge of a building or a new master plan. Even if he or she is entirely sympathetic to the idea of sustainable development, the report from the United Nations' World Commission on Environment and Development on its own does not provide, nor was it ever intended to provide, practical help.

Therefore, following the wide acceptation of the commissions' vision, efforts have been made to "operationalize" the notion of sustainable development into a system of laws, beliefs and morals by which to organise society.

The focal point of the sustainability debate has been a quest for balance, where sustainable development is represented as the intersection of three areas of concern： Ecology, Economy and Equity. The ambition has been to find a model in which everything is in harmony-on a global scale. With such a broad definition, sustainability is understood as the mother of all societal debates, the one issue that contains all others： gender equality, urban planning, tax policy, universal access to buildings, health, immigration politics, literacy programmes, the preservation of heritage, etc.

All of these debates are, to some extent, concerned with finding balances： Between man and woman, the collective and the individual, the old and the new. As a result, there is not a single societal debate of importance that cannot be considered an integral part of the quest for sustainability.

Aspirations to curb the greenhouse gas effect through climate policy are quite recent additions to the sustainability debate. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s report predicting global disaster has profoundly changed the terms of the debate. A few non-believers aside, the scale and importance of the predicted effects of climate change have pushed all parties, even those traditionally not concerned with sustainability, to reconsider their position.

While the extinction of this or that small animal in some forest, or a catastrophe incurred by a chemical company far away, had been "boutique"concerns only for activists, global warming and its horizon of perpetual disaster is harder to ignore.

For these more recent converts, climate mitigation is almost a synonym for sustainability.They see global warming as the urgent problem, and sustainability as the solution. Hence the increased need for operationalization, for a way to "roll out" the best solutions conceived of by humanity's brightest and most ambitious as fast as possible. The idea seems to be, that if we can imagine the solutions, we can upscale them in record time and change our destiny.

In this context, sustainability is treated as a matter of good management, without explicit reference to ideology. Here, the only criterion for a solution to be sustainable is that it be "better" than what is commonly done today, a criteria often, but not always, measured in terms of carbon impact.

Between the Walls of Masdar City

One of the largest objects in our exhibition, Behind the Green Door1), is a model of the city of Masdar, as imagined by the British architectural firm Foster & Partners. Masdar is planned to be car free and to use solar power and other renewable energy sources exclusively. By design, it is a zero carbon, zero waste system. The city is currently under construction just next to Abu Dhabi International Airport, and the hope is for it to be operational as a hub for "cleantech" companies from 2016 and onwards. In a press release made by the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, which is established to develop and operate the new city, Pooran Desai OBE, co-founder of the British environmental organisation BioRegional, says："Masdar would be the largest and one of the most advanced sustainable communities in the world." Together with the WWF, BioRegional is acting as an environmental consultant for the project.

John Roberts, a principal at the engineering & environmental consultancy firm Arup, said of Masdar City： "It is a good example of clearly set boundaries, in this case even marked by a city wall. The scale, six square kilometres, is relatively modest and the goals are clearly set： a carbon neutral, zero waste community. Because of these boundaries, I think they can succeed. Never mind what happens outside these boundaries, the car is parked outside the city wall."

According to Roberts, Masdar should be seen as a pocket of space that is sustainable inasmuch as it can be disconnected from the unsustainable world that surrounds it. The square wall that fences the city, though designed to increase the town's climatic performance, can be seen as the materialisation of that idea. Of course, to disconnect Masdar from its surroundings, or to pretend that it has conceptual autonomy, are mental exercises that are difficult to maintain. Without Abu Dhabi's airport next door, Masdar could never become a hub. Without a cement factory, it could never be built, and had it not been located in an oil-rich region, the project would probably never even have been conceived.

And yet, Masdar does not take even partial responsibility for the harmful side effects of any of these activities. When Masdar claims to be zero carbon, the claim refers solely to the emissions taking place within the city walls.

Masdar is often presented as a "new city in the middle of the desert", but can more easily be understood as a large development in the outskirts of Abu Dhabi. Conceptually, economically and geographically, the project is closely linked to the existing material and organisational frameworks of the city and the region.

Artificial Boundaries

Extending this reasoning, it can be said of all "sustainable" projects that there must be a limit to the claims they can make. The logic is as follows：

1. We live in a world that is unsustainable. Global warming is but one of the indicators that this is the case.

2. Directly and indirectly, everything is connected to everything else in totally unpredictable ways. Ecologists have demonstrated this time and again for the past fifty years.

3. Therefore, for a project to be called sustainable, there must be a strong conceptual boundary around it, separating it from its unsustainable context.

One must say： This is what we, as authors, will take into account when designing our project; these are the limits of the responsibility that we take. It is not possible to design with the whole world in mind, taking every potential and unpredictable consequence into account.

The limits of responsibility can, for example, be defined geographically, as in the case of Masdar and many other "carbon neutral" cities, but they might as well be defined on the basis of other and sometimes surprising criteria.

For instance, take the case of the Gyprocplaster board produced in Kallo, Belgium. In 2012, the product received a silver label from the private certification system Cradle to Cradle? on the basis that it is entirely toxin-free and fully recyclable. Today, new Gyproc boards do indeed contain up to 15 per cent recycled plasterboard, but for technical reasons, there is no hope to increase that percentage above 20 per cent anytime in the near future. As Belgium has little or no gypsum extraction capabilities, the remaining 80 per cent or more of the raw material is obtained from coal combustion in electric power plants. These produce plaster by "washing" their exhaust with calcium, so as to comply with the European regulations on acid NOx emissions, which are established to reduce the frequency of acid rain.

（3）因此，對(duì)于一個(gè)被稱為可持續(xù)的項(xiàng)目，必須有一個(gè)概念清晰的界限將其與周邊不可持續(xù)的環(huán)境隔離開(kāi)來(lái)。

我們必須說(shuō)：這是我們作為作者在設(shè)計(jì)我們自己的項(xiàng)目時(shí)所必須考慮的一點(diǎn)；我們所承擔(dān)的責(zé)任是有限的。在設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)，不可能將所有的可能性和不可預(yù)知的結(jié)果都考慮進(jìn)去，“心懷天下”是不現(xiàn)實(shí)的。

責(zé)任的界限可以通過(guò)地理區(qū)位來(lái)劃分，比如馬斯達(dá)爾和許多其他“碳中和”的城市，但或許也可以借助其他標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，有時(shí)甚至是一些出人意料的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)界定。

比如，2012年產(chǎn)于比利時(shí)卡洛的吉普洛克石膏板，由于完全無(wú)毒和可回收，獲得“從搖籃到搖籃”私人認(rèn)證體系的銀獎(jiǎng)。在今天看來(lái)，吉普洛克石膏板確實(shí)含有15%的可回收板材，但由于技術(shù)原因，在不久的將來(lái)，提高這一回收率至20%以上是基本無(wú)望的。由于比利時(shí)幾乎沒(méi)有提取石膏的能力，原材料中余下的80%或更多的石膏是從電廠的燃煤中獲取的。用碳“沖洗”廢氣從而獲得石膏的制法，符合歐盟對(duì)酸氧化氮排放的法規(guī)，而這些法規(guī)的制定有助于減少酸雨的頻率。

由此可見(jiàn)，煤炭與石膏板行業(yè)是直接相關(guān)的。石膏的產(chǎn)生在今天的燃煤發(fā)電廠中是不可避免的，將石膏用于石膏板的生產(chǎn)同樣也是不可避免的。目前，煤石膏沒(méi)有其他更重要的用途，也不存在經(jīng)濟(jì)上可行的替代來(lái)源用以代替石膏板生產(chǎn)所需的石膏。然而， 在這些緊密相關(guān)的行業(yè)中，一方被冠以“可持續(xù)”的標(biāo)簽，另一方則被認(rèn)為是“不可持續(xù)”的產(chǎn)業(yè)。在這種情況下，較之地理上的限制，材料所有權(quán)上的變化似乎與可持續(xù)發(fā)展界限之間有著更緊密的關(guān)系。在某地，當(dāng)石膏從發(fā)電廠被運(yùn)往石膏板工廠的途中，石膏從一個(gè)不可持續(xù)的燃煤電廠的副產(chǎn)品，轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樯a(chǎn)可持續(xù)的石膏板的原材料。

人們通常認(rèn)為，一個(gè)更全面的方法可以避免視野的狹窄，如同微積分的應(yīng)用范圍太過(guò)狹窄，CO2的排放標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也只適用于很小的地理區(qū)域內(nèi)。這常常導(dǎo)致將一些“軟性”的考核參數(shù)納入進(jìn)來(lái)，比方說(shuō)，一個(gè)項(xiàng)目對(duì)生物多樣性甚或是幸福指數(shù)的影響范圍究竟有多大。在這樣一種語(yǔ)境下，單獨(dú)的數(shù)據(jù)在評(píng)估一個(gè)行為所具有的社會(huì)影響時(shí)所表現(xiàn)出的無(wú)能為力，時(shí)常為人所詬病。然而，即便使用一種更加定性的方法，比如借助社會(huì)科學(xué)去衡量類似的影響，有一點(diǎn)也需指出，即無(wú)論野心有多大，所需承擔(dān)的責(zé)任總是有限的。

在最佳情況下，一個(gè)實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的全面方法可以擴(kuò)大一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的概念邊界。但卻不能將這些邊界一同移除開(kāi)來(lái)。同樣地，小到獨(dú)棟住宅的設(shè)計(jì)，大到一整座城市的設(shè)計(jì)，不同尺度間的變化帶來(lái)的是視野的拓寬。但當(dāng)我們將目光集中在一座單獨(dú)的城市（它的邊界何在？）的時(shí)候，也就等于在為其創(chuàng)建人為的邊界。

尋找救贖之路

對(duì)于作為一個(gè)整體的地球而言，一個(gè)項(xiàng)目所產(chǎn)生的影響幾乎是不可能去評(píng)估的，但如果我們將范圍縮小至一個(gè)相對(duì)較小的范圍內(nèi)的話，對(duì)于利弊的比較和決策的制定會(huì)變得相對(duì)容易。于是，一個(gè)小區(qū)域的可持續(xù)發(fā)展可以被理解為一個(gè)使“善舉”成為可能的工具。

通常，使用過(guò)的資源會(huì)在數(shù)量或性質(zhì)上具有一系列自我強(qiáng)加式的限制，通過(guò)接受這些限制條件，出資者們均可確信他們的項(xiàng)目對(duì)于一個(gè)更加平衡的世界是有益的，或至少?zèng)]有進(jìn)一步增加已有的不平衡。如果這些項(xiàng)目被認(rèn)為是可持續(xù)的，消耗、建造、旅行、賺錢(qián)等行為均可以被再次“無(wú)罪豁免”。

可再生能源就是這樣一個(gè)道德的避風(fēng)港。與礦物能相反的是，可再生能源不可以被過(guò)度使用，如同太陽(yáng)不能過(guò)度地照，風(fēng)不能過(guò)度地吹。各種對(duì)太陽(yáng)能加以利用的方法都被認(rèn)為是可持續(xù)的能源，其中包括燃燒生物質(zhì)。

因此，歐盟于2006年設(shè)定了一個(gè)數(shù)額龐大的生物燃料配額，用以補(bǔ)充加油站的常規(guī)汽油。從植物中合成的碳?xì)浠衔锱c從石油中提煉的常規(guī)燃料相混合，從而得到生物燃料。

采取這一政策的初衷不僅是要增加“綠色”的就業(yè)崗位，也要有助于扼制因交通導(dǎo)致的CO2排放。然而，隨著法規(guī)的實(shí)施，歐洲所有的柴油汽車(chē)在一夜間變成了稀有農(nóng)田和農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手。食品價(jià)格飛漲，致使全球饑荒泛濫。更糟糕的是， 不久以后，人們便意識(shí)到，作為這一政策的副作用，大面積的熱帶雨林被棕櫚樹(shù)所取代，從而導(dǎo)致生物多樣性的嚴(yán)重缺失。

人們通常對(duì)被廢棄的材料給予相似的愿望。例如，美國(guó)森林巡查隊(duì)支持回收柚木的使用。在這些巡查隊(duì)的施壓之下，迪勒·斯科費(fèi)迪歐+倫弗洛建筑事務(wù)所轉(zhuǎn)而使用從亞洲進(jìn)口的回收柚木，以完成紐約“高線”（由鐵路改造而成的公共公園）的建設(shè)。由于回收而來(lái)的木材完全來(lái)自被拆除的建筑，無(wú)需通過(guò)砍伐樹(shù)木獲取木料，人們才對(duì)其偏愛(ài)有加。既然回收的柚木已成為一種既成事實(shí)，如棄之不用，則是一種浪費(fèi)，正因如此，它被視作一種無(wú)害的建筑材料。

然而，美國(guó)家庭露臺(tái)所用的柚木地板價(jià)格之高甚至可以與亞洲部分地區(qū)整棟住宅的價(jià)值相提并論。紐約時(shí)報(bào)的一項(xiàng)調(diào)研表明，這（美國(guó)回收亞洲的柚木）導(dǎo)致大量當(dāng)?shù)刈≌徊鸪?，?duì)當(dāng)?shù)刈≌兄鴮?shí)質(zhì)性的影響。在這種情況下，既不會(huì)有采礦發(fā)生，也不會(huì)使用危險(xiǎn)化學(xué)品，更不會(huì)砍伐原始森林或產(chǎn)生任何形式的奴役，這樣一種以認(rèn)為公道的價(jià)格購(gòu)買(mǎi)（廢棄）材料的單純行為，事實(shí)上擾亂了一個(gè)與美國(guó)相距遙遠(yuǎn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)體的平衡，并導(dǎo)致住宅和遺產(chǎn)的破壞。

在上述兩個(gè)實(shí)例背后隱含著這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)：一種資源的受益群體發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)移。盡管某一尚未開(kāi)發(fā)的資源由地球上的一部分人所發(fā)現(xiàn)，但在未考慮另一部分人的需求之前，是否該出于滿足自己的需求對(duì)這一資源加以利用，是一個(gè)重要的道德議題。既然我們生活在一個(gè)資源供不應(yīng)求的世界中，對(duì)資源的每一次利用都具有排他性。盡管身處在一個(gè)自由的全球化市場(chǎng)中，資源的分配和任何會(huì)影響這種分配的邏輯均與政治問(wèn)題有著深刻的牽連。如今，在行使與土地、能源或物資等任何數(shù)量的資源消耗有關(guān)的權(quán)力時(shí)，都要深思熟慮，以免對(duì)后代子孫或當(dāng)代弱勢(shì)群體以及其他物種構(gòu)成影響。

在這一背景下，任何消耗（能源）的活動(dòng)均不是中性的，即便只使用可回收材料或可再生材料蓋房子。此外，這與事物的規(guī)模無(wú)關(guān)——盡管規(guī)模小的事物很難具有全球影響力，相比大事物，小事物的影響力會(huì)成比例地縮減。在一個(gè)自然資源有限、氣候變化迅速的時(shí)代中，可持續(xù)發(fā)展的密閉區(qū)域會(huì)因此被認(rèn)為是對(duì)決策者道德本性的反應(yīng)。

那又如何？

所有“可持續(xù)的”項(xiàng)目在某種程度上都是不可持續(xù)性的“中介”，對(duì)于這一現(xiàn)實(shí)至少有兩種反應(yīng)的途徑。其一是堅(jiān)信萬(wàn)物之間的互聯(lián)性這一不可否認(rèn)的事實(shí)。根據(jù)這個(gè)邏輯，建筑項(xiàng)目與對(duì)其有所牽制的環(huán)境是不可分離的，同理，我們也無(wú)法將已經(jīng)“去物質(zhì)化”的歐洲服務(wù)業(yè)與亞洲工廠分開(kāi)來(lái)，后者肩負(fù)著生產(chǎn)用于歐洲人消費(fèi)的商品的工作。

盡管這一態(tài)度因其清晰明了而具有吸引力，而且很難被批判，但當(dāng)它被成體系地應(yīng)用時(shí)，卻又無(wú)能為力。它所允許的唯一結(jié)論是，沒(méi)有任何建筑項(xiàng)目是可以永續(xù)的，無(wú)論其規(guī)模大小，因?yàn)樗且粋€(gè)不可持續(xù)的整體系統(tǒng)中的組成部分。這種推理使得我們得到如下結(jié)論，即所有聲稱的可持續(xù)發(fā)展一定是建立在誤解或誤讀的基礎(chǔ)上，而這一結(jié)論所依賴的唯一論據(jù)是，世間萬(wàn)物沒(méi)有什么可以真正做到可持續(xù)發(fā)展。

第二種態(tài)度則更為務(wù)實(shí)：它承認(rèn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的理念在很大程度上取決于其概念所在的語(yǔ)境，而且不具備數(shù)學(xué)所普遍具有的精確性。那么，問(wèn)題不再是馬斯達(dá)爾城是否“真正可持續(xù)”，而是這座城市（或建筑，或項(xiàng)目）對(duì)世界究竟有著怎樣的影響？它又會(huì)將人類和我們地球的信念引向何方？從這個(gè)角度看，馬斯達(dá)爾城的雄心在于成為一個(gè)技術(shù)的試驗(yàn)田，從而在世界其他地區(qū)被推而廣之，相比這個(gè)目標(biāo)，城墻內(nèi)CO2的減排顯得微不足道。

3 石膏板，“從搖籃到搖籃”認(rèn)證。唯一的問(wèn)題是，在很多地方制作這種意在可持續(xù)的石膏板的原料是煤炭燃燒的副產(chǎn)品。/Plasterboard, "cradle-to-cradle"-certified. Only thing is, in many places the gypsum for the supposedly sustainable boards is a byproduct of coal fired power plants.（攝影/Photo： Rotor）

如果我們雄心勃勃地想要努力創(chuàng)建一個(gè)和諧的世界，關(guān)鍵是要評(píng)估這樣或那樣的可持續(xù)發(fā)展的小區(qū)域是否僅僅是不良副作用的外化表現(xiàn)，而這些副作用往往產(chǎn)生在不易接受公眾監(jiān)督（最可能是來(lái)自富人和窮人的監(jiān)督）的地區(qū)；或者，與之相反的是，要評(píng)估這些小區(qū)域是否只是宏偉（盡管也許是謙卑的）計(jì)劃的開(kāi)端?，F(xiàn)在的問(wèn)題是，“可持續(xù)”這個(gè)用來(lái)對(duì)所有人類雄心之和的結(jié)果加以描述的詞語(yǔ)，是否適合應(yīng)用在具體的情況之中，或者其使用是否應(yīng)嚴(yán)格地局限在抽象的討論之中。

The coal and plaster board industries are thus directly related. The production of gypsum is unavoidable in today's coal-powered plants, and its use for the production of plasterboard is unavoidable, despite the recycled content. There is no other significant use for coal-gypsum, nor is there any economically viable alternative source of gypsum for the production of plasterboard. And yet, of these closely tied industries, one has the label "sustainable" while the other is thought of as "unsustainable". In this case, the boundary of the claim of sustainability seems more related to the ownership of the material than a geographic limit. Somewhere during the transport of the gypsum from the power plant to the plasterboard factory, the plaster changes from the status of a by-product of unsustainable coal combustion to the status of raw material for the production of sustainable plasterboard.

It is often argued that a more holistic approach can avoid the tunnel vision resulting from a too narrow application of calculi, as when CO2emission standards are applied to tiny geographical areas. Often this results in the inclusion of "softer" assessment parameters, for instance, to what extent the project contributes to biodiversity or even happiness. In this context, there is much to be said about the inability of data alone to assess the social impact of an operation. But even when this aspect is dealt with in a more qualitative way, for instance, by the social sciences, it is important to point out that however large the ambitions, there will always be a limit to the degree of responsibility one can take on.

In the best-case scenario, a holistic approach to sustainability will enlarge a project's conceptual boundaries. But it cannot altogether remove them. In the same way, a shift in the scale of action from the design of individual houses to the design of an entire city certainly allows for a broadening of perspectives. But to focus on a single city (where does it end?) is to create artificial boundaries as well.

In Search of Salvation

While it is virtually impossible to assess the implications a project may have for the planet as a whole, operating in a smaller area makes it easier to compare the pros and cons and then make decisions. A pocket of sustainability can thus be understood as a device that makes it possible to "do good".

By accepting an often self-imposed series of constraints on the quantity or nature of the resources used, the subscribers to sustainability are reassured that their projects contribute to a more balanced world, or at least do not further increase the imbalance. If they can be considered sustainable, acts of consumption, building, travelling, earning money, etc. can be guilt-free again.

Renewable energy is one such moral safe haven.The logic is that contrary to fossil fuels, renewable energy cannot be overused, as the sun cannot "overshine" and the wind cannot "over-blow". Various methods for harnessing the power of the sun are considered sustainable energy sources, including the combustion of biomass.

As a result, the European Union fixed an ambitious quota for the addition of biofuel to regular petrol at the gas station in 2006. To make biofuel, hydrocarbons are synthesized from plants to be mixed with regular fuel, derived from petroleum.

This policy was adopted under the impression that it would not only result in more "green" jobs but also help curb transport related CO2emissions. But with the implementation of the regulation, every diesel car in Europe was transformed into a competitor for scarce agricultural land and produce overnight. Food prices soared, resulting in famines worldwide. To make matters worse, it was soon realised that as a side effect of the policy, large areas of rainforest were transformed into palm tree plantations, resulting in a significant loss of biodiversity.

A similar hope is often invested in waste materials. Consider, for instance, advocacy for the use of reclaimed teak wood by US forest watch groups. Because of pressure imposed by these groups, the architectural firm Diller Scofidio+Renfro switched to using imported reclaimed teak from Asia to finish the construction of the High Line in New York, an industrial rail line turned park area.The logic behind the preference for reclaimed wood is that no trees are being cut for this timber, as it originates solely from demolition work. Reclaimed teak is considered a building material that does no harm, because it already exists and would "go to waste" if left unused.

However, the value of teak flooring for terraces in the US is so high that it competes with the realestate value of entire homes in some parts of Asia. An investigation by The New York Times has shown that this resulted in demolitions with real impact on local housing availability. In this case, noting that there is no mining involved, that no dangerous chemicals are used, that no cutting down of virgin forests or slavery of any kind is taking place, the simple act of purchasing (waste) materials at what was perceived to be a fair price upset the balance of a faraway economy and led to the destruction of housing and heritage.

Both examples imply a transfer of some benefits of a resource from one group to another. But even if one was to discover a resource that was truly untapped, the exploitation of these resources in order to fulfil the needs of one part of the global population

before considering those of a different part, would still have moral implications. As long as we live in a world where demand for resources exceeds the supply, every use of resources excludes them from others. Even in the context of a globalised "free" market, the distribution of resources and any logic that may influence this distribution are profoundly political matters. Today, the consumption of any amount of resources, land, energy or material goods, involves a deliberate exercise of power, affecting either future generations or current and lesspowerful groups of humans or other species.

4 像這樣的泰國(guó)柚木屋正在被木材商拆解，并賣(mài)到美國(guó)。/ Teak houses like this one in Thailand are being disassembled by wood traders, who sell the lumber to American homeowners.

5 一個(gè)經(jīng)銷(xiāo)商正在檢查泰國(guó)柚木屋的地板。她通常用5萬(wàn)塊買(mǎi)一個(gè)這樣的住宅，再將木材研磨。一些保護(hù)主義者認(rèn)為，像她這樣的商人在鼓勵(lì)房屋的拆毀。/A reseller inspects the floor of a teak house in Thailand. She often pays 50,000 or more for a house, then re-mills the wood. Some preservationists say that traders like her encourage tear-downs.

6 一對(duì)居住在紐約州奇漢普敦的夫婦在他們的臥室中的留影，2007年。他們?cè)诘匕搴蛪γ嫜b修中使用了回收柚木。/ A couple from Bridgehampton, NY, posing in their bedroom in 2007. The pair used recovered teak wood for the flooring as well as the wall behind the bed. （攝影/Photo： Gordon M. Grant）

或許有一天，這些可持續(xù)發(fā)展的小區(qū)域會(huì)變多、變大，直至彼此相連形成若干大的區(qū)域，最終覆蓋整個(gè)地球以及地球上在一個(gè)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的新型網(wǎng)絡(luò)中所發(fā)生的一切。然而在這之前，任何事物，無(wú)論是割草機(jī)或建筑物都可以被貼上“可持續(xù)”的標(biāo)簽，而這本身應(yīng)被視作一種帶有政治意圖的聲明。當(dāng)有人宣稱可持續(xù)發(fā)展的時(shí)候，他就是在說(shuō)：“這（事物或事件或目標(biāo)）有助于世界發(fā)展得更加平衡，這在道德上是正確的?！?只要我們生活在一個(gè)不平衡的世界中，所有類似的表述均應(yīng)被拿出來(lái)加以討論。

暫時(shí)性的真理

具體操作的本質(zhì)具有快速和大規(guī)模行動(dòng)的意味，但似乎不允許上述這種沒(méi)完沒(méi)了的質(zhì)疑。相反，它傾向于依賴容易被傳播的簡(jiǎn)單語(yǔ)句。然而，在我們基于以上這些理由，對(duì)具體操作作為一個(gè)整體加以排斥之前，我們也要考慮它所具有的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。例如，以可持續(xù)發(fā)展為目標(biāo)的具體操作行動(dòng)，已經(jīng)對(duì)歐洲社會(huì)產(chǎn)生了前所未有的影響。把一個(gè)人送上月球的雄心在1960年代后期曾使一大部分人為之著迷，不知是否可以將可持續(xù)發(fā)展與這一代人的太空競(jìng)賽相提并論？這本身可以被視為具有一種積極的品質(zhì)么？

可以肯定的是，大多數(shù)以可持續(xù)發(fā)展為目標(biāo)的具體操作在理念上層出不窮。人們可以將那些用于具體操作的工具作為一個(gè)高效的測(cè)試想法和提議的實(shí)驗(yàn)室，而這些想法和提議都在追求一個(gè)更加“美好”的社會(huì)。這其中的一些想法與人類對(duì)長(zhǎng)壽的預(yù)期相契合，其他的主意則被相當(dāng)快速地扼殺掉。的確，工具本身可以很容易地被某些人出于一己私利而利用，而某些想法的迅速“升級(jí)”造成了本來(lái)可以通過(guò)小心謹(jǐn)慎加以避免的損失。但如果對(duì)這些錯(cuò)誤所造成的困難給予關(guān)照的話，對(duì)不合時(shí)宜的發(fā)展道路的炫耀，在某種程度上甚至都能被認(rèn)為是有益的舉動(dòng)。

或許，對(duì)具體操作最有利的論據(jù)是，在通常情況下，過(guò)程創(chuàng)造了一種氛圍，許多人于其中發(fā)現(xiàn)至少部分被掩蓋的真相可以被重新加以考量的可能性。的確，那些陷入具體操作工具的想法逐漸趨于同質(zhì)化。然而，在可持續(xù)發(fā)展的主流話語(yǔ)中，人們已經(jīng)找到論據(jù)用以質(zhì)疑當(dāng)代諸多的教條?？沙掷m(xù)發(fā)展的日常操作很容易被輕蔑地視為膚淺的表面功夫——比如，對(duì)家庭垃圾的分類或拼車(chē)行為——但卻讓許多人第一次萌生了新的想法。如果說(shuō)，可持續(xù)發(fā)展并沒(méi)有創(chuàng)造實(shí)際的進(jìn)展，那它至少帶來(lái)了改變。而這種改變的意義在于，它證明了改變是有可能發(fā)生的，我們所生活的世界并非處在一個(gè)只能無(wú)條件接受的給定狀態(tài)。

如果真正的可持續(xù)發(fā)展是人類的一項(xiàng)計(jì)劃，我們必須認(rèn)識(shí)到，絕對(duì)的真理少之又少，大多都是主觀現(xiàn)實(shí)。但與此同時(shí)，不得不承認(rèn)的是，人們有充分的理由去接受甚至贊同一些經(jīng)過(guò)優(yōu)選的暫時(shí)性真理的存在，而這背后隱含的意思是，在這些暫時(shí)性的真理之中同樣孕育著批判的種子，直至終有一日被（新的真理所）取代。

再次聲明，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)尚有待討論。

注釋：

1）“綠色大門(mén)背后”是2013奧斯陸建筑三年展最主要的展覽。我們的任務(wù)是瀏覽各種各樣聲稱為“可持續(xù)”的建筑項(xiàng)目。我們并不是從自己的假定出發(fā)來(lái)考慮何為“可持續(xù)”，進(jìn)而尋找說(shuō)明我們觀點(diǎn)的好的案例，而是選擇去展示那些被其他人稱為“可持續(xù)”的事物。（展覽草圖繪制：Rotor/伯納德·羅布斯·希達(dá)戈。展場(chǎng)及展品攝影：Rotor/羅拉·貝辛。）

In this context, no act of consumption is neutral, even when only reclaimed or renewable materials are involved. Moreover, it is not a matter of scale. While it may be more difficult to see the global impact of small-scale projects, their impact will be proportionally similar to that of larger projects. In our age of limited natural resources and climate change, confined pockets of sustainability can therefore be understood as reactions to the ricocheting nature of morality among decision makers.

So What?

There are at least two ways to react to the realisation that all "sustainable" projects also are to some degree agents of unsustainability. The first is to insist on interconnectedness as an undeniable fact. According to this logic, it is impossible to separate the architectural project from the context driving it, just as it is impossible to separate the "dematerialized" European service economy from the factories in Asia that produce the goods it consumes.

While this attitude may be attractive because it is coherent and cannot easily be criticized, when applied systematically, it causes paralysis. The only conclusion it allows for is that no architectural project can ever be sustainable, regardless of its scale, because it is an integral part of a system that is unsustainable as a whole. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that every pretension to sustainability must be founded on misunderstanding or misrepresentation, with essentially one single takeaway： Nothing can really be sustainable.

The second attitude is even more pragmatic： It acknowledges that the idea of sustainability depends greatly on its conceptual context, and that it does not have a universal mathematical quality. The issue is, then, no longer whether Masdar is or is not "really sustainable", but rather： How is the world affected by such a city/building/project? In what direction does the project push the faith of humanity and our globe? From this point of view, Masdar's ambition to be a test case for technology that can be applied elsewhere is more significant than the lack of CO2emissions in within its walls.

If our ambition with sustainability is to strive for a world that is a harmonic whole, it is crucial to assess whether the construction of this or that pocket of sustainability is merely an externalisation of undesirable side-effects to areas less prone to public scrutiny (most probably by the haves and of the have-nots) or whether, on the contrary, these pockets of sustainability are noble - although perhaps modest-beginnings. The question is whether the word sustainable-which describes the outcome of the sum of all of humanity's ambitionsis appropriate to apply to concrete situations, or whether its use should be limited to strictly abstract discussions.

Perhaps one day, these pockets of sustainability will be so numerous and grow so large that they will start connecting to each other in mega-pockets, and finally cover the entire planet and everything that takes place on it in a new network of sustainability. But until that is the case, labelling anything sustainable, whether it is a lawnmower or a building, should be seen as a political statement. To claim sustainability is to say： "This object contributes to greater balance in the world; this is morally right." And as long as we live in an unbalanced world, all statements of this kind should be up for discussion.

Temporary Truths

The very nature of operationalization, that has a taste for fast and large-scale action, does not seem to allow this kind of permanent questioning. On the contrary, it tends to rely on simple statements that are easy to propagate. However, before we dismiss operationalization as a whole on those grounds, we should also consider its merits. For instance, the operationalization of sustainability has had an unprecedented impact on European society. Could it become this generation's equivalent of the Space Race, the ambition to put a man on the moon, which fascinated a good part of humanity in the late 1960s? Can this be considered a positive quality on its own?

Most certainly the operationalization of sustainability means a quick turnover of ideas. One could consider the apparatus of operationalization as a highly effective test lab for ideas and proposals that strive for a "better" society. Some ideas are accorded the prospect of a long life; others are killed off quite rapidly. Yes, this apparatus can easily be misused for personal profit, and the rapid "upscaling" of certain ideas has caused damage that could have been avoided with more caution. But, without dismissing the suffering such mistakes have caused, even the display of inappropriate ways forward can, to some extent, be considered beneficial.

Probably the biggest argument in favour of operationalization is that in general, the process has created an atmosphere in which many have found it possible to reconsider at least some of the truths they are trapped in. True, ideas that get tangled up in the apparatus of operationalization tend to lose much of their nuance. But within the discourse of mainstream sustainability, people have found arguments to question contemporary dogmas. The daily exercise of sustainability, which may easily be dismissed as superficial-for instance, the domestic sorting of waste, or carpooling-offer many people a first encounter with alternative ideas. If sustainability has not created actual progress, a conclusion which at this point cannot be excluded, then it has at least created change. And the merit of this change is that it proves that change is possible, that the world we live in is not a given state that must be accepted unconditionally.

If true sustainability is to become a project of humanity, the recognition that there are few absolute truths and many subjective realities, is essential. But at the same time, one has to admit there are good reasons to accept and even to endorse the installation of well-chosen temporary truths, with the implicit understanding that these also contain the seeds of the arguments that ultimately cancel them out.

Once again, the criteria are up for discussion.

Note:

1) Behind the Green Door is the most central event at the Oslo Architecture Triennale 2013. Our mission has been to look at a broad variety of building projects that claim to be sustainable. Rather than starting from our own assumption as to what is to be considered sustainable and then trying to find good examples to illustrate our point, we have chosen to document what others call sustainable. (All sketches of exhibits are by Rotor - Bernardo Robles Hidalgo. All pictures of items in the exhibitions are by Rotor - Lola Bazin.)

Pockets of Sustainability： An Introduction to the Oslo Architecture Triennale 2013

Today's world is unsustainable： the global consumption of resources exceeds the planet's capacity to renew them. It is also interconnected and uncontrollable：every human action generates unexpected effects, somewhere around the globe. There is a fair chance that good done here causes trouble somewhere else. Is it still possible, given these conditions, to claim sustainability? Pockets of Sustainability says it is, providing you fix conceptual boundaries around what you label sustainable and accept, that by fixing these boundaries, you are taking a political stance.

architecture, urban planning, sustainability, assessing sustainability, Brundtland report

Rotor項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理，2013奧斯陸建筑三年展“綠色大門(mén)背后”策展人/Project manager, Rotor/curators of OAT 2013 "Behind the Green Door"

2013-11-10