小区域可持续发展：2013奥斯陆建筑三年展初探

马尔腾·吉伦，莱昂内尔·戴维列格/Maarten Gielen, Lionel Devlieger路培 译/Translated by LU Pei

小区域可持续发展：2013奥斯陆建筑三年展初探

马尔腾·吉伦，莱昂内尔·戴维列格/Maarten Gielen, Lionel Devlieger路培 译/Translated by LU Pei

当今世界是不可持续的，因为地球资源的更新能力不及全球资源的消耗速度。世间万物彼此相关，不可控制：所有的人类活动都会在地球上的某个地方产生不可预期的影响。一处的善举往往会给其他地方带来麻烦。在这种情况下，是否仍然可以提出可持续发展的要求？小区域可持续发展对此给出了肯定的回答，并在你所认为的“可持续发展”的周边划定概念的边界，当你将边界固定，对此给予接受，也就意味着你站在了政治的立场上。

建筑，城市规划，可持续发展，对可持续发展的评估，布伦特兰报告

在布伦特兰报告“我们共同的未来”中，对可持续发展做了如下的定义，即处理当今之事必须尊重明日之需求。但这份报告并未提供执行这一理念所需遵循的一系列原则。

可以想象的是，一座建筑或一个总体规划方案的主持建筑师，尽管他或她完全认同可持续发展的理念，却从未能够从联合国世界委员会的一纸报告中获得任何有实际意义的帮助。

因此，在联合国世界委员会的观点得到广泛认同的前提下，可持续发展的概念已经被细化为社会组织方面的一系列可供操作的法律规定、信念和道德准则。

关于可持续发展的讨论一直以来都集中在对平衡的追求上，其中，可持续发展表现为由生态、经济和公平3个议题所共同形成的交集地带。它以探寻一种适用于全球范围内万物和谐共存的模式为己任。在如此广博的定义下，可持续发展被理解为所有社会问题的根源，即一个兼容了所有其他问题的问题：两性平等、城市规划、税收政策、建筑物的普遍放开、健康、移民政策、扫盲计划和遗产保护，等等。

在某种程度上，上述所有问题都与对平衡的追求有关：男性与女性之间、集体与个人之间、新与旧之间。因而，任何一个重要的社会议题都被认为是人类在探求可持续发展的道路上不可分离的组成部分。

希冀通过气候政策遏制温室气体效应，是对可持续发展议题的最新补充。然而，政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）关于全球性灾难的预测报告已经深刻地改变了这一议题的重要性。除少数对此不抱信仰的人士外，气候变化所带来的可预见的影响，无论从其规模还是重要性而言，已促使各方党派，包括那些历来对可持续发展不予关心的人们，重新审视各自的立场。

如果说，某片森林中的某种小动物的灭绝，或某家遥远的化工厂所发生的一场灾难，都已然成为活跃分子口中独有的时髦话题，全球变暖及其导致的永久性灾难所波及的范围更加不容忽视。

对于那些最新加入可持续发展事业的人们而言，减缓气候变化几乎是可持续发展的同义词。他们将全球变暖视为亟待解决的问题，将可持续发展视为解决该问题的方式。从此，人们对具体操作方法的需求与日俱增，希冀借助人类的聪明智慧和雄心，在最短的时间内找到最佳的解决方案，从而为可持续发展铺平道路。这似乎是在说，如果我们能提出解决方案，我们便可在最短的时间内提升它们，改变我们的命运。

1 MIPIM国际房地产展会门厅，2013年/From the lounge at the Mipim real estate fair in Cannes, 2013（摄影/Photo：Rotor-Benjamin Lasserre）

2 马斯达尔城早期效果图，福斯特+合伙人事务所，阿布扎比（阿联酋），2008年-2023年/Early study of Masdar City by Foster + Partners, Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), 2008-2023（图片来源/Ill.： Foster + Partners）

由此，我们可以说，可持续发展关乎高水平的管理，而与意识形态之间没有明确的关系。判断一个解决方案是否可持续的唯一标准在于，看它是否优于当下的所做所为，而碳排放量是衡量当下行为是否可持续的通常而非一贯的标准。

马斯达尔的城墙之间

我们此次“绿色大门背后”1）展览的最大参展作品之一，是由英国的福斯特+合伙人建筑事务所设计的马斯达尔城市模型。马斯达尔被规划为一个没有汽车、只使用太阳能和其他可再生能源的城市。希望通过设计，形成一个零碳排放和零废弃物的系统。如今，这座城市已在阿布扎比国际机场附近破土动工，并希望从2016年起作为清洁技术企业的聚集中心开始运营。英国环境组织、阿布扎比未来能源公司百瑞诺联合创始人普伦·德赛在一份新闻稿中说道：“马斯达尔可能是未来世界最大且最先进的可持续发展的社区。” 百瑞诺与世界自然基金会（WWF）一起，同为这个项目的环境顾问机构。

英国奥雅纳工程与环境顾问公司的首席建筑师约翰·罗伯茨对马斯达尔城的评价是：“在这个项目中，城市的边界用城墙划分，堪称一个边界划分清晰的优秀案例。它拥有6km2相对适宜的尺度，且目标明确，即创建一个碳中和、零废弃物的社区。由于城市边界的存在，我认为他们可以成功。他们无需介意边界以外发生什么，因为汽车停在城墙之外。”

在罗伯茨看来，由于马斯达尔城和其周边不可持续发展的环境相分离，可以被看作是一个可持续发展的小区域空间。尽管其四周围墙的设计初衷只是为提高该市的气候性能，却成为这一规划理念的外在显现。当然，无论是将马斯达尔与其周边的环境脱离开来，还是假设它拥有概念上的自主权，都只是难以维持的空想。如果没有旁边的阿布扎比机场，马斯达尔恐怕永远不会成为核心；如果没有水泥厂，它也不可能建成；如果不是由于它所在的地区盛产石油，这个项目恐怕从一开始就不会被提出。

然而，马斯达尔对所有这些活动所产生的有害影响都不负有责任，哪怕是一部分的责任。当马斯达尔表明自己的零碳主张时，仅仅是指城墙之内所产生的碳排放。

“沙漠中的新城”是人们对马斯达尔的通常印象，但它更容易被认为是对阿布扎比郊区的大规模扩充。从概念、经济和地理位置上讲，这个项目与阿布扎比城市和地区的现存材料和组织结构都紧密相关。

人为边界

如果我们展开理论推导，所有“可持续”的项目在对可持续发展的主张中必须有“度”的限制。逻辑如下：

（1）我们生活在一个不可持续的世界中。全球变暖是且只是这一事实的表征之一。

（2）世间万物直接或间接地与其他事物以一种完全不可预知的方式相互联系在一起。

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，对于一个被称为可持续的项目，必须有一个概念清晰的界限将其与周边不可持续的环境隔离开来。

我们必须说：这是我们作为作者在设计我们自己的项目时所必须考虑的一点；我们所承担的责任是有限的。在设计时，不可能将所有的可能性和不可预知的结果都考虑进去，“心怀天下”是不现实的。

责任的界限可以通过地理区位来划分，比如马斯达尔和许多其他“碳中和”的城市，但或许也可以借助其他标准，有时甚至是一些出人意料的标准来界定。

比如，2012年产于比利时卡洛的吉普洛克石膏板，由于完全无毒和可回收，获得“从摇篮到摇篮”私人认证体系的银奖。在今天看来，吉普洛克石膏板确实含有15%的可回收板材，但由于技术原因，在不久的将来，提高这一回收率至20%以上是基本无望的。由于比利时几乎没有提取石膏的能力，原材料中余下的80%或更多的石膏是从电厂的燃煤中获取的。用碳“冲洗”废气从而获得石膏的制法，符合欧盟对酸氧化氮排放的法规，而这些法规的制定有助于减少酸雨的频率。

由此可见，煤炭与石膏板行业是直接相关的。石膏的产生在今天的燃煤发电厂中是不可避免的，将石膏用于石膏板的生产同样也是不可避免的。目前，煤石膏没有其他更重要的用途，也不存在经济上可行的替代来源用以代替石膏板生产所需的石膏。然而， 在这些紧密相关的行业中，一方被冠以“可持续”的标签，另一方则被认为是“不可持续”的产业。在这种情况下，较之地理上的限制，材料所有权上的变化似乎与可持续发展界限之间有着更紧密的关系。在某地，当石膏从发电厂被运往石膏板工厂的途中，石膏从一个不可持续的燃煤电厂的副产品，转变为生产可持续的石膏板的原材料。

人们通常认为，一个更全面的方法可以避免视野的狭窄，如同微积分的应用范围太过狭窄，CO2的排放标准也只适用于很小的地理区域内。这常常导致将一些“软性”的考核参数纳入进来，比方说，一个项目对生物多样性甚或是幸福指数的影响范围究竟有多大。在这样一种语境下，单独的数据在评估一个行为所具有的社会影响时所表现出的无能为力，时常为人所诟病。然而，即便使用一种更加定性的方法，比如借助社会科学去衡量类似的影响，有一点也需指出，即无论野心有多大，所需承担的责任总是有限的。

在最佳情况下，一个实现可持续发展的全面方法可以扩大一个项目的概念边界。但却不能将这些边界一同移除开来。同样地，小到独栋住宅的设计，大到一整座城市的设计，不同尺度间的变化带来的是视野的拓宽。但当我们将目光集中在一座单独的城市（它的边界何在？）的时候，也就等于在为其创建人为的边界。

寻找救赎之路

对于作为一个整体的地球而言，一个项目所产生的影响几乎是不可能去评估的，但如果我们将范围缩小至一个相对较小的范围内的话，对于利弊的比较和决策的制定会变得相对容易。于是，一个小区域的可持续发展可以被理解为一个使“善举”成为可能的工具。

通常，使用过的资源会在数量或性质上具有一系列自我强加式的限制，通过接受这些限制条件，出资者们均可确信他们的项目对于一个更加平衡的世界是有益的，或至少没有进一步增加已有的不平衡。如果这些项目被认为是可持续的，消耗、建造、旅行、赚钱等行为均可以被再次“无罪豁免”。

可再生能源就是这样一个道德的避风港。与矿物能相反的是，可再生能源不可以被过度使用，如同太阳不能过度地照，风不能过度地吹。各种对太阳能加以利用的方法都被认为是可持续的能源，其中包括燃烧生物质。

因此，欧盟于2006年设定了一个数额庞大的生物燃料配额，用以补充加油站的常规汽油。从植物中合成的碳氢化合物与从石油中提炼的常规燃料相混合，从而得到生物燃料。

采取这一政策的初衷不仅是要增加“绿色”的就业岗位，也要有助于扼制因交通导致的CO2排放。然而，随着法规的实施，欧洲所有的柴油汽车在一夜间变成了稀有农田和农产品的竞争对手。食品价格飞涨，致使全球饥荒泛滥。更糟糕的是， 不久以后，人们便意识到，作为这一政策的副作用，大面积的热带雨林被棕榈树所取代，从而导致生物多样性的严重缺失。

人们通常对被废弃的材料给予相似的愿望。例如，美国森林巡查队支持回收柚木的使用。在这些巡查队的施压之下，迪勒·斯科费迪欧+伦弗洛建筑事务所转而使用从亚洲进口的回收柚木，以完成纽约“高线”（由铁路改造而成的公共公园）的建设。由于回收而来的木材完全来自被拆除的建筑，无需通过砍伐树木获取木料，人们才对其偏爱有加。既然回收的柚木已成为一种既成事实，如弃之不用，则是一种浪费，正因如此，它被视作一种无害的建筑材料。

然而，美国家庭露台所用的柚木地板价格之高甚至可以与亚洲部分地区整栋住宅的价值相提并论。纽约时报的一项调研表明，这（美国回收亚洲的柚木）导致大量当地住宅被拆除，对当地住宅有着实质性的影响。在这种情况下，既不会有采矿发生，也不会使用危险化学品，更不会砍伐原始森林或产生任何形式的奴役，这样一种以认为公道的价格购买（废弃）材料的单纯行为，事实上扰乱了一个与美国相距遥远的经济体的平衡，并导致住宅和遗产的破坏。

在上述两个实例背后隐含着这样一个事实：一种资源的受益群体发生了转移。尽管某一尚未开发的资源由地球上的一部分人所发现，但在未考虑另一部分人的需求之前，是否该出于满足自己的需求对这一资源加以利用，是一个重要的道德议题。既然我们生活在一个资源供不应求的世界中，对资源的每一次利用都具有排他性。尽管身处在一个自由的全球化市场中，资源的分配和任何会影响这种分配的逻辑均与政治问题有着深刻的牵连。如今，在行使与土地、能源或物资等任何数量的资源消耗有关的权力时，都要深思熟虑，以免对后代子孙或当代弱势群体以及其他物种构成影响。

在这一背景下，任何消耗（能源）的活动均不是中性的，即便只使用可回收材料或可再生材料盖房子。此外，这与事物的规模无关——尽管规模小的事物很难具有全球影响力，相比大事物，小事物的影响力会成比例地缩减。在一个自然资源有限、气候变化迅速的时代中，可持续发展的密闭区域会因此被认为是对决策者道德本性的反应。

那又如何？

所有“可持续的”项目在某种程度上都是不可持续性的“中介”，对于这一现实至少有两种反应的途径。其一是坚信万物之间的互联性这一不可否认的事实。根据这个逻辑，建筑项目与对其有所牵制的环境是不可分离的，同理，我们也无法将已经“去物质化”的欧洲服务业与亚洲工厂分开来，后者肩负着生产用于欧洲人消费的商品的工作。

尽管这一态度因其清晰明了而具有吸引力，而且很难被批判，但当它被成体系地应用时，却又无能为力。它所允许的唯一结论是，没有任何建筑项目是可以永续的，无论其规模大小，因为它是一个不可持续的整体系统中的组成部分。这种推理使得我们得到如下结论，即所有声称的可持续发展一定是建立在误解或误读的基础上，而这一结论所依赖的唯一论据是，世间万物没有什么可以真正做到可持续发展。

第二种态度则更为务实：它承认可持续发展的理念在很大程度上取决于其概念所在的语境，而且不具备数学所普遍具有的精确性。那么，问题不再是马斯达尔城是否“真正可持续”，而是这座城市（或建筑，或项目）对世界究竟有着怎样的影响？它又会将人类和我们地球的信念引向何方？从这个角度看，马斯达尔城的雄心在于成为一个技术的试验田，从而在世界其他地区被推而广之，相比这个目标，城墙内CO2的减排显得微不足道。

3 石膏板，“从摇篮到摇篮”认证。唯一的问题是，在很多地方制作这种意在可持续的石膏板的原料是煤炭燃烧的副产品。/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.（摄影/Photo： Rotor）

如果我们雄心勃勃地想要努力创建一个和谐的世界，关键是要评估这样或那样的可持续发展的小区域是否仅仅是不良副作用的外化表现，而这些副作用往往产生在不易接受公众监督（最可能是来自富人和穷人的监督）的地区；或者，与之相反的是，要评估这些小区域是否只是宏伟（尽管也许是谦卑的）计划的开端。现在的问题是，“可持续”这个用来对所有人类雄心之和的结果加以描述的词语，是否适合应用在具体的情况之中，或者其使用是否应严格地局限在抽象的讨论之中。

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 像这样的泰国柚木屋正在被木材商拆解，并卖到美国。/ Teak houses like this one in Thailand are being disassembled by wood traders, who sell the lumber to American homeowners.

5 一个经销商正在检查泰国柚木屋的地板。她通常用5万块买一个这样的住宅，再将木材研磨。一些保护主义者认为，像她这样的商人在鼓励房屋的拆毁。/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 一对居住在纽约州奇汉普敦的夫妇在他们的卧室中的留影，2007年。他们在地板和墙面装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. （摄影/Photo： Gordon M. Grant）

或许有一天，这些可持续发展的小区域会变多、变大，直至彼此相连形成若干大的区域，最终覆盖整个地球以及地球上在一个可持续发展的新型网络中所发生的一切。然而在这之前，任何事物，无论是割草机或建筑物都可以被贴上“可持续”的标签，而这本身应被视作一种带有政治意图的声明。当有人宣称可持续发展的时候，他就是在说：“这（事物或事件或目标）有助于世界发展得更加平衡，这在道德上是正确的。” 只要我们生活在一个不平衡的世界中，所有类似的表述均应被拿出来加以讨论。

暂时性的真理

具体操作的本质具有快速和大规模行动的意味，但似乎不允许上述这种没完没了的质疑。相反，它倾向于依赖容易被传播的简单语句。然而，在我们基于以上这些理由，对具体操作作为一个整体加以排斥之前，我们也要考虑它所具有的优点。例如，以可持续发展为目标的具体操作行动，已经对欧洲社会产生了前所未有的影响。把一个人送上月球的雄心在1960年代后期曾使一大部分人为之着迷，不知是否可以将可持续发展与这一代人的太空竞赛相提并论？这本身可以被视为具有一种积极的品质么？

可以肯定的是，大多数以可持续发展为目标的具体操作在理念上层出不穷。人们可以将那些用于具体操作的工具作为一个高效的测试想法和提议的实验室，而这些想法和提议都在追求一个更加“美好”的社会。这其中的一些想法与人类对长寿的预期相契合，其他的主意则被相当快速地扼杀掉。的确，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“升级”造成了本来可以通过小心谨慎加以避免的损失。但如果对这些错误所造成的困难给予关照的话，对不合时宜的发展道路的炫耀，在某种程度上甚至都能被认为是有益的举动。

或许，对具体操作最有利的论据是，在通常情况下，过程创造了一种氛围，许多人于其中发现至少部分被掩盖的真相可以被重新加以考量的可能性。的确，那些陷入具体操作工具的想法逐渐趋于同质化。然而，在可持续发展的主流话语中，人们已经找到论据用以质疑当代诸多的教条。可持续发展的日常操作很容易被轻蔑地视为肤浅的表面功夫——比如，对家庭垃圾的分类或拼车行为——但却让许多人第一次萌生了新的想法。如果说，可持续发展并没有创造实际的进展，那它至少带来了改变。而这种改变的意义在于，它证明了改变是有可能发生的，我们所生活的世界并非处在一个只能无条件接受的给定状态。

如果真正的可持续发展是人类的一项计划，我们必须认识到，绝对的真理少之又少，大多都是主观现实。但与此同时，不得不承认的是，人们有充分的理由去接受甚至赞同一些经过优选的暂时性真理的存在，而这背后隐含的意思是，在这些暂时性的真理之中同样孕育着批判的种子，直至终有一日被（新的真理所）取代。

再次声明，标准尚有待讨论。

注释：

1）“绿色大门背后”是2013奥斯陆建筑三年展最主要的展览。我们的任务是浏览各种各样声称为“可持续”的建筑项目。我们并不是从自己的假定出发来考虑何为“可持续”，进而寻找说明我们观点的好的案例，而是选择去展示那些被其他人称为“可持续”的事物。（展览草图绘制：Rotor/伯纳德·罗布斯·希达戈。展场及展品摄影：Rotor/罗拉·贝辛。）

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项目经理，2013奥斯陆建筑三年展“绿色大门背后”策展人/Project manager, Rotor/curators of OAT 2013 "Behind the Green Door"

2013-11-10