I grew up on a small farm in Missouri. We lived on less than a dollar a day for about 15 years. I got a scholarship, went to university, studied international agriculture, studied anthropology, and decided I was going to give back. I was going to work with small farmers. I was going to help alleviate poverty. I was going to work on international development, and then I took a turn and ended up here. Now, if you get a Ph.D., and you decide not to teach, you don't always end up in a place like this. It's a choice. You might end up driving a taxicab. You could be in New York. What I found was, I started working with refugees and famine victims -- small farmers, all, or nearly all -- who had been dispossessed and displaced. Now, what I'd been trained to do was methodological research on such people. So I did it: I found out how many women had been raped en route to these camps. I found out how many people had been put in jail, how many family members had been killed. I assessed how long they were going to stay and how much it would take to feed them. And I got really good at predicting how many body bags you would need for the people who were going to die in these camps.
我在密苏里州的一个小农场长大。 我们以每天少于一美元的生活费 生活了大概15年。 我获得了奖学金,进了大学, 学习国际农业以及人类学, 并打算要回报社会。 我曾和小农场主一起工作。 也为缓解贫困而努力过。 还参与了国际化开发。 接着我改变了想法 结果混到了这里。 今天如果你获得了一个博士学位,又不想去教书, 通常也不会来到这样的一个地方。 这是个选择,你最终可能会去开的士。 你可能会在纽约。 我所发现的是, 自己的工作在难民和饱受饥荒的人群中展开- 小农场的农民,全部或者绝大多数- 都是被逐出家园或被迫流离。 我所接受的培训是 对这样的人群进行方法论的研究。 我做了这样的研究: 我发现了 在去向这些难民营的途中多少女性遭遇性侵害。 我发现了多少人被投进了监狱, 多少家庭成员被杀害。 我估算出他们大概会待多久 并需要多少粮食。 结果我变得非常擅长预测 给在这些营地中将要死去的人们 需要装多少尸袋。
Now this is God's work, but it's not my work. It's not the work I set out to do. So I was at a Grateful Dead benefit concert on the rainforests in 1988. I met a guy -- the guy on the left. His name was Ben. He said, "What can I do to save the rainforests?" I said, "Well, Ben, what do you do?" "I make ice cream." So I said, "Well, you've got to make a rainforest ice cream. And you've got to use nuts from the rainforests to show that forests are worth more as forests than they are as pasture." He said, "Okay." Within a year, Rainforest Crunch was on the shelves. It was a great success. We did our first million-dollars-worth of trade by buying on 30 days and selling on 21. That gets your adrenaline going. Then we had a four and a half million-dollar line of credit because we were credit-worthy at that point. We had 15 to 20, maybe 22 percent of the global Brazil-nut market. We paid two to three times more than anybody else. Everybody else raised their prices to the gatherers of Brazil nuts because we would buy it otherwise. A great success. 50 companies signed up, 200 products came out, generated 100 million in sales. It failed. Why did it fail? Because the people who were gathering Brazil nuts weren't the same people who were cutting the forests. And the people who made money from Brazil nuts were not the people who made money from cutting the forests. We were attacking the wrong driver. We needed to be working on beef. We needed to be working on lumber. We needed to be working on soy -- things that we were not focused on.
这是上帝的工作,不是我的工作。 这不是我当初想做的工作。 1988年我曾经出席一场‘感恩而死’乐队关于热带雨林 的公益演唱会。 我遇见了一个人,左边那个。 他的名字叫本。 他说:“我能为拯救热带雨林做些什么?” 我问:“本,你打算做什么?” “我生产冰激凌。” 我就说,“那你就要做 一种热带雨林冰激凌。 而且你要用热带雨林里的花生 来展现它们作为雨林的价值要大于 它们作为牧草场的价值。” 他说,“好的。” 不到一年, 热带雨林系列冰激凌上架销售。 卖的非常好。 我们通过30天的集中采购和21天的出售 做成了第一比价值百万美元的贸易。 这让人兴奋不已。 接着因为当时我们的声誉很好, 我们拿到了450万美元的信贷。 我们占有了巴西花生全球市场的15%到20%, 或许是22%。 我们支付比别人多两到三倍的价钱用来采购。 其他所有人都不得不提价来采购巴西花生 因为不这样的话,巴西花生就被我们买走了。 这执行地非常成功。 与50家公司签定合同,我们生产200种商品, 创造了1亿的销售额。 但它还是失败的。 为什么说是失败的? 因为采购巴西花生的人 不是那些砍伐雨林的人。 而且从巴西花生上赚钱的人 也不是通过砍伐雨林而赚钱的人。 我们没找准这问题的切入点。 我们本应该在牛肉, 木材,还有大豆上 花功夫, 但是我们没有集中精力关注这些东西。
So let's go back to Sudan. I often talk to refugees: "Why was it that the West didn't realize that famines are caused by policies and politics, not by weather?" And this farmer said to me, one day, something that was very profound. He said, "You can't wake a person who's pretending to sleep."
回到苏丹。 我经常和难民聊天: “为什么西方国家意识不到 饥荒是由政策和政治导致的, 而不是天气?” 有一天这位农民对我 说了一些意味深长的话。 他说,“你很难把一个装睡的人叫醒。”
(Laughter)
(笑声)
Okay. Fast forward. We live on a planet. There's just one of them. We've got to wake up to the fact that we don't have any more and that this is a finite planet. We know the limits of the resources we have. We may be able to use them differently. We may have some innovative, new ideas. But in general, this is what we've got. There's no more of it. There's a basic equation that we can't get away from. Population times consumption has got to have some kind of relationship to the planet, and right now, it's a simple "not equal." Our work shows that we're living at about 1.3 planets. Since 1990, we crossed the line of being in a sustainable relationship to the planet. Now we're at 1.3. If we were farmers, we'd be eating our seed. For bankers, we'd be living off the principal, not the interest. This is where we stand today. A lot of people like to point to some place else as the cause of the problem. It's always population growth. Population growth's important, but it's also about how much each person consumes. So when the average American consumes 43 times as much as the average African, we've got to think that consumption is an issue. It's not just about population, and it's not just about them; it's about us. But it's not just about people; it's about lifestyles. There's very good evidence -- again, we don't necessarily have a peer-reviewed methodology that's bulletproof yet -- but there's very good evidence that the average cat in Europe has a larger environmental footprint in its lifetime than the average African. You think that's not an issue going forward? You think that's not a question as to how we should be using the Earth's resources?
好吧,快进一下。 我们生活在一个行星上, 像这样的行星只有一个。 我们一定要清醒过来并意识到这个情况 没有其他的了, 而且这是一个资源有限的行星。 我们清楚所拥有的资源的极限。 我们或许可以换个方法来使用它们。 我们或许可以有一些革新,一些新的点子。 但从总体上讲,这些就是我们所有的。 没别的了。 有一个我们不容回避的基本的公式。 人口乘上消耗 一定是和这个行星有某种关系, 而现在,这关系就是“不相等”。 我们的调研显示我们现在的生活消耗 大约是在地球的承受范围1.3倍。 自1990年起, 我们就已经越过了 保持与地球可持续关系的界限。 现在是1.3倍。 如果我们是农民,我们就已经在吃种子。 如果是银行家,我们在依靠本金过活,而不是利息。 这就是我们今天的处境。 很多人喜欢把 别的事情说成是问题的起因。 总是拿人口增长说事。 人口增长是很重要, 但人均消耗也很重要。 当美国人均 消费是非洲人均消费 的43倍之多, 我们应当要把消耗正视为一个问题。 而不只是人口问题, 不仅仅是人口问题,还是关于我们消耗的问题。 不过这也不光是人的问题; 而是关于生活方式。 这有一个非常有利的证据- 的确,我们还没有 一个无懈可击的 专家评审的方法- 但是的确有非常好的证据可以证明 在欧洲平均每只猫 在其一生中所有的生态足迹要大于 非洲人均水平的生态足迹。 大家不认为这是前进道路上的一个问题吗? 我们应该如何使用地球的资源, 大家觉得这不是个问题吗?
Let's go back and visit our equation. In 2000, we had six billion people on the planet. They were consuming what they were consuming -- let's say one unit of consumption each. We have six billion units of consumption. By 2050, we're going to have nine billion people -- all the scientists agree. They're all going to consume twice as much as they currently do -- scientists, again, agree -- because income is going to grow in developing countries five times what it is today -- on global average, about [2.9]. So we're going to have 18 billion units of consumption. Who have you heard talking lately that's said we have to triple production of goods and services? But that's what the math says. We're not going to be able to do that. We can get productivity up. We can get efficiency up. But we've also got to get consumption down. We need to use less to make more. And then we need to use less again. And then we need to consume less. All of those things are part of that equation.
回到我们的等式。 2000年,地球上有60亿人。 他们消耗着他们所需要消耗的- 我们假设每个人消耗一个单位的资源。 那我们就有60亿个单位消耗。 到2050年, 我们就会有90亿人-所有的科学家都是这么认为。 他们都将消耗两倍于现在人均消耗的资源- 科学家也都同意这点- 因为在发展中国家的收入都会增长 至今天的5倍- 全球平均一下,大约是1.9倍。 这样我们就有了180亿单位的消耗。 你听谁最近在说 我们一定要将食品和服务的产能 增长三倍? 但是算术上来讲就是这样的。 我们应付不了那样的情况。 产能可以提升。 效率可以增加。 但消耗也应该降低。 我们需要使用更少的资源 来生产更多。 然后我们又要用得更少。 消耗得更少。 所有这些都是等式的一部分。
But it basically raises a fundamental question: should consumers have a choice about sustainability, about sustainable products? Should you be able to buy a product that's sustainable sitting next to one that isn't, or should all the products on the shelf be sustainable? If they should all be sustainable on a finite planet, how do you make that happen? The average consumer takes 1.8 seconds in the U.S. Okay, so let's be generous. Let's say it's 3.5 seconds in Europe. How do you evaluate all the scientific data around a product, the data that's changing on a weekly, if not a daily, basis? How do you get informed? You don't. Here's a little question. From a greenhouse gas perspective, is lamb produced in the U.K. better than lamb produced in New Zealand, frozen and shipped to the U.K.? Is a bad feeder lot operation for beef better or worse than a bad grazing operation for beef? Do organic potatoes actually have fewer toxic chemicals used to produce them than conventional potatoes? In every single case, the answer is "it depends." It depends on who produced it and how, in every single instance. And there are many others. How is a consumer going to walk through this minefield? They're not. They may have a lot of opinions about it, but they're not going to be terribly informed.
但这就带出一个最根本的问题: 消费者是否应该有 对可持续性以及可持续商品的选择权? 当一件可持续的产品紧挨着另一件不可持续的产品, 你是否能自觉选择去购买那件可持续的产品? 或者所有架上的产品都应该是可持续的产品? 如果在一个资源有限的星球上,它们应该全部都是可持续的产品, 你怎么来实现它? 在美国普通消费者的平均每次购买东西的时间是1.8秒。 好,让我们宽松一点。 就假设欧洲的情况是3.5秒。 你要如何来评估关于一个产品的 所有科学数据. 这是每周都在变动的数据,如果不是每天变的话? 你如何得知? 没办法。 这里就有个问题。 从温室气体的角度来看, 一只英国产的羊羔 是否比新西兰产的羊羔冷冻后运到 英国更好? 一个糟糕的饲养牛场的操作 相比一个糟糕的放牧养牛操作 是更好还是更差? 有机土豆 相比起传统土豆真的就 在生产的过程中使用更少的 有毒化学物质来生产吗? 在每一个单独的案例中 答案总是“看情况”。 在每一个案例中都要看, 是哪家生产的以及如何生产。 当然还有很多别的例子。 一个消费者要如何来跨过这个雷区? 他们不会的。 他们可能会对此有很多看法, 但他们不会得到很多的信息。
Sustainability has got to be a pre-competitive issue. It's got to be something we all care about. And we need collusion. We need groups to work together that never have. We need Cargill to work with Bunge. We need Coke to work with Pepsi. We need Oxford to work with Cambridge. We need Greenpeace to work with WWF. Everybody's got to work together -- China and the U.S. We need to begin to manage this planet as if our life depended on it, because it does, it fundamentally does. But we can't do everything. Even if we get everybody working on it, we've got to be strategic. We need to focus on the where, the what and the who. So, the where: We've identified 35 places globally that we need to work. These are the places that are the richest in biodiversity and the most important from an ecosystem function point-of-view. We have to work in these places. We have to save these places if we want a chance in hell of preserving biodiversity as we know it. We looked at the threats to these places. These are the 15 commodities that fundamentally pose the biggest threats to these places because of deforestation, soil loss, water use, pesticide use, over-fishing, etc.
可持续必须是一个竞争前的问题。 这一定是我们所有人都关心的事情。 我们需要共同谋划。 我们需要前所未有的集团与集团之间的合作。 嘉吉要跟邦奇和作, 可口要和百事合作, 牛津要与剑桥合作。 绿色和平组织也要跟世界野生动物基金合作。 每个人都要同心协力- 中国与美国。 我们要开始管理这颗行星 就好像我们的生命都依赖于它, 因为事实的确如此, 根本上就是这样。 但是我们也不是什么都能做。 就算我们让所有人一起参与进来, 我们需要有策略。 我们需要关注“在哪里”, “做什么”以及“和谁”。 那么,在哪里: 我们已经定位了全球35个我们需要展开工作的地方。 这些是生物多样性最最丰富的地方 也是从生态系统功能角度来讲最重要的。 我们一定要在这些地方开展工作。 如果我们的的确确想要拯救这些我们所知的生物多样性, 我们必须要拯救这些地方。 我们观察了对这些地方的威胁。 有15种商品的开发过程 严重威胁着 这些地方。 因为森林采伐, 土地流失,水源利用,杀虫剂的使用, 以及过度捕捞等等。
So we've got 35 places, we've got 15 priority commodities, who do we work with to change the way those commodities are produced? Are we going to work with 6.9 billion consumers? Let's see, that's about 7,000 languages, 350 major languages -- a lot of work there. I don't see anybody actually being able to do that very effectively. Are we going to work with 1.5 billion producers? Again, a daunting task. There must be a better way. 300 to 500 companies control 70 percent or more of the trade of each of the 15 commodities that we've identified as the most significant. If we work with those, if we change those companies and the way they do business, then the rest will happen automatically. So, we went through our 15 commodities. This is nine of them. We lined them up side-by-side, and we put the names of the companies that work on each of those. And if you go through the first 25 or 30 names of each of the commodities, what you begin to see is, gosh, there's Cargill here, there's Cargill there, there's Cargill everywhere. In fact, these names start coming up over and over again. So we did the analysis again a slightly different way. We said: if we take the top hundred companies, what percentage of all 15 commodities do they touch, buy or sell? And what we found is it's 25 percent. So 100 companies control 25 percent of the trade of all 15 of the most significant commodities on the planet. We can get our arms around a hundred companies. A hundred companies, we can work with.
所以我们有35个地方 以及15种主要主要商品, 我们与谁合作 来改变这些商品的生产方式呢? 是要跟69亿消费者吗? 让我们来看一下,他们大概讲着7000种语言, 350种主要语言 那可是非常大的工作量。 我并不认为任何人可以 有效率的来那样做。 我们要和15亿的生产者合作吗? 一样,令人却步的任务。 一定要有更好的办法。 300至500家公司 控制着70%或更多产品, 这些产品就是我们所鉴别出的15种 最重要的贸易商品。 如果与这些公司合作,如果我们可以改变这些公司 和他们的经营方式, 剩下的就水到渠成。 所以我们研究了这我们所列出的15种商品。 这是其中的9种。 我们将它们挨个排对, 同时也将在经营这些商品的公司名字 放上去。 然后当你看到经营每种商品的公司 最开头的25到30个名字, 你开始发现了 天哪,这里有嘉吉,那里也有嘉吉, 到处都是嘉吉。 事实上,这些名字不断的重复。 所以我们用稍微不同的方法重新分析了一遍。 我们假设:如果我们拿这前一百名的公司来看, 在所有这15种商品上 他们有接触,购买或者销售 的百分比是多少? 我们所发现的是25%的比例。 那就是100家公司 控制着这行星上 15种最重要的商品 25%的交易量。 我们能够围绕这100家公司来展开工作。 100家公司,我们能应付过来。
Why is 25 percent important? Because if these companies demand sustainable products, they'll pull 40 to 50 percent of production. Companies can push producers faster than consumers can. By companies asking for this, we can leverage production so much faster than by waiting for consumers to do it. After 40 years, the global organic movement has achieved 0.7 of one percent of global food. We can't wait that long. We don't have that kind of time. We need change that's going to accelerate. Even working with individual companies is not probably going to get us there. We need to begin to work with industries. So we've started roundtables where we bring together the entire value chain, from producers all the way to the retailers and brands. We bring in civil society, we bring in NGOs, we bring in researchers and scientists to have an informed discussion -- sometimes a battle royale -- to figure out what are the key impacts of these products, what is a global benchmark, what's an acceptable impact, and design standards around that. It's not all fun and games.
为什么这25%这么重要? 因为如果这些公司要求可持续的产品, 他们会拉动40%到50%的生产。 公司推动生产商 可比消费者更快多了。 通过公司这样的要求 相较于等着消费者来做改变 更快地促进了生产方式转变。 40年之后,全球有机运动 实现了百分之0.7的 全球食品有机化。 我们等不了这么久。 我们没有太多时间。 我们需要加速 可持续性转变。 即使与单独的公司合作 也不大可能让我们达成目标 我们需要与整个行业合作。 所以我们发起了 聚集了整条价值链的圆桌会议, 从生产商, 一路下来到零售商和各大品牌。 我们也带进民间团体和非政府组织, 我们也带进研究人员和科学家 以确保有一个信息充分的交流- 有时候像一场大逃杀- 来指明这些产品的 主要影响是什么, 什么是一个全球标准, 什么是可以接受的影响, 并且围绕这些来制定标准。 这过程并不都是很有趣。
In salmon aquaculture, we kicked off a roundtable almost six years ago. Eight entities came to the table. We eventually got, I think, 60 percent of global production at the table and 25 percent of demand at the table. Three of the original eight entities were suing each other. And yet, next week, we launch globally verified, vetted and certified standards for salmon aquaculture. It can happen.
六年前, 我们在鲑鱼水产业中 开展了一个圆桌会议。 8个实体公司加入。 最终我们邀请到了全球60% 的生产商以及25%的需求商 来到会议桌前。 在这之前8家中的三家在互相起诉。 然而就在下周,我们将启动 全球范围对鲑鱼水产业 验证,审核以及认证的标准。 这是可以实现的。
(Applause)
(掌声)
So what brings the different entities to the table? It's risk and demand. For the big companies, it's reputational risk, but more importantly, they don't care what the price of commodities is. If they don't have commodities, they don't have a business. They care about availability, so the big risk for them is not having product at all. For the producers, if a buyer wants to buy something produced a certain way, that's what brings them to the table. So it's the demand that brings them to the table. The good news is we identified a hundred companies two years ago. In the last 18 months, we've signed agreements with 40 of those hundred companies to begin to work with them on their supply chain. And in the next 18 months, we will have signed up to work with another 40, and we think we'll get those signed as well. Now what we're doing is bringing the CEOs of these 80 companies together to help twist the arms of the final 20, to bring them to the table, because they don't like NGOs, they've never worked with NGOs, they're concerned about this, they're concerned about that, but we all need to be in this together. So we're pulling out all the stops. We're using whatever leverage we have to bring them to the table.
那是什么将 这些不同的企业带到桌边? 是风险和需求。 对于大企业,有它的声誉风险, 但更重要的是, 他们无所谓商品的价格。 如果他们没有商品,就没生意做了。 他们关心的是可利用性, 对他们来说最大的风险就是没有产品了。 对于生产商来说, 如果购买者对产品有特定的要求, 这就是他们要来的原因。 所以是需求将他们聚拢到会议桌边。 好消息是 两年前我们认定了一百家企业。 过去的18个月里, 我们和100家中的40家签订了协议 并开始和他们的供应链合作。 在未来的18个月里, 我们会与另外的40家企业签协议, 我们认为我们也会成功的签下这些。 现在我们所做的是邀请 所有这80家公司的主管们 来一起努力鼓动最后的20家 加入进来。 因为他们不喜欢非政府组织,他们从未和非政府组织合作过, 他们担心这个担心那个, 但是我们一定要一起处理这个问题。 我们正在竭尽所能使圆桌会议谈判下去。 我们正在用一切手段促使他们来到谈判桌前。
One company we're working with that's begun -- in baby steps, perhaps -- but has begun this journey on sustainability is Cargill. They've funded research that shows that we can double global palm oil production without cutting a single tree in the next 20 years, and do it all in Borneo alone by planting on land that's already degraded. The study shows that the highest net present value for palm oil is on land that's been degraded. They're also undertaking a study to look at all of their supplies of palm oil to see if they could be certified and what they would need to change in order to become third-party certified under a credible certification program. Why is Cargill important? Because Cargill has 20 to 25 percent of global palm oil. If Cargill makes a decision, the entire palm oil industry moves, or at least 40 or 50 percent of it. That's not insignificant. More importantly, Cargill and one other company ship 50 percent of the palm oil that goes to China. We don't have to change the way a single Chinese company works if we get Cargill to only send sustainable palm oil to China. It's a pre-competitive issue. All the palm oil going there is good. Buy it.
一家我们从一开始就在做工作的公司 在最初始的阶段可能是- 但已经开始踏上这条可持续性发展道路的就是嘉吉公司。 他们所资助的研究显示 在未来的20年里我们可以一棵棕榈树都不砍就 将全球棕榈油产量翻一翻, 而且这全部只在婆罗洲种植, 在那些早已经退化的的土地上可再种植。 这项研究显示棕榈油 最高的净现值 是在退化的土地上产生的。 他们也正着手另一项关于 他们的棕榈油供应的研究 以确认是否他们能通过认证 以及他们需要做什么样的改变能让他们在一个可靠的认证方案下 通过第三方认证。 为什么嘉吉公司这么重要? 因为嘉吉拥有全球20%到25%的 棕榈油。 如果嘉吉做了可持续性发展决定, 整个棕榈油行业都要变动, 或者至少40%到50的变化。 那可不是一个微不足道的比例。 更重要的是,嘉吉和另一家公司 占据了一半 卖向中国市场的棕榈油。 我们不用改变任何一家中国公司 的运作方式, 假如让嘉吉只卖 可持续性的棕榈油给中国。 这是一个“竞争前”议题。 所有送去的棕榈油都是可持续性的。 买吧。
Mars is also on a similar journey. Now most people understand that Mars is a chocolate company, but Mars has made sustainability pledges to buy only certified product for all of its seafood. It turns out Mars buys more seafood than Walmart because of pet food. But they're doing some really interesting things around chocolate, and it all comes from the fact that Mars wants to be in business in the future. And what they see is that they need to improve chocolate production. On any given plantation, 20 percent of the trees produce 80 percent of the crop, so Mars is looking at the genome, they're sequencing the genome of the cocoa plant. They're doing it with IBM and the USDA, and they're putting it in the public domain because they want everybody to have access to this data, because they want everybody to help them make cocoa more productive and more sustainable. What they've realized is that if they can identify the traits on productivity and drought tolerance, they can produce 320 percent as much cocoa on 40 percent of the land. The rest of the land can be used for something else. It's more with less and less again. That's what the future has got to be, and putting it in the public domain is smart. They don't want to be an I.P. company; they want to be a chocolate company, but they want to be a chocolate company forever.
玛氏也在经历一个类似的状况。 现在大部分的人都认可玛氏是一个巧克力公司。 但玛氏已经做出关于可持续的承诺, 只购买经过认证的产品来加工它所有的海产食品。 原来玛氏所购买的海产食品比沃尔玛还要多 因为它生产宠物食品。 但是他们正在做一些关于巧克力的研究, 而这一切都是因为 玛氏想要在未来扩大它的业务。 他们认为他们需要 改善巧克力的产能。 在任何的种植场里, 20%的树产出了80%的产量, 所以玛氏把目光对准基因组, 他们在将可可树的基因进行排序。 他们正和IBM以及美国农业部合作, 并向公众领域开放该项目, 他们希望所有人都能接触到这些数据, 因为他们希望所有人都能来帮一把 将可可变得更高产更可持续。 他们所发现的是 如果可以鉴别出 决定产量及耐旱度的性状, 他们可以用40%的土地 生产出320%的可可。 多出来的土地可以留作他用。 又是一个生产更多消耗更少的例子。 这才是未来必经之路, 把这计划向公共领域开放是明智的。 他们不想成为一个知识产权公司,他们想做一家巧克力公司, 而且是想永远做一家巧克力公司。
Now, the price of food, many people complain about, but in fact, the price of food is going down, and that's odd because in fact, consumers are not paying for the true cost of food. If you take a look just at water, what we see is that, with four very common products, you look at how much a farmer produced to make those products, and then you look at how much water input was put into them, and then you look at what the farmer was paid. If you divide the amount of water into what the farmer was paid, the farmer didn't receive enough money to pay a decent price for water in any of those commodities. That is an externality by definition. This is the subsidy from nature. Coca-Cola, they've worked a lot on water, but right now, they're entering into 17-year contracts with growers in Turkey to sell juice into Europe, and they're doing that because they want to have a product that's closer to the European market. But they're not just buying the juice; they're also buying the carbon in the trees to offset the shipment costs associated with carbon to get the product into Europe. There's carbon that's being bought with sugar, with coffee, with beef. This is called bundling. It's bringing those externalities back into the price of the commodity.
现在很多人抱怨食品的价格, 但事实上食品价格一直在持续地降低, 那是蛮怪的,因为事实上, 消费者们并没有在支付食品的真正成本。 如果你看下用水的情况 我们所发现的是, 在4种非常普遍的产品中, 看一下每个农民要生产多少来制造这些产品, 再看需要多少水来投入生产, 然后看下农民拿多少钱, 如果把用水量 除一下农民收入, 农民拿的钱还不够 来为这些商品生产过程中的用水支付一个合适的价钱。 那就是一个标准的外部经济效益。 这是从大自然那拿的津贴。 可口可乐,他们生产要用很多水, 现在,他们正和土耳其的种植者签订 17年的协议 来把果汁出售到欧洲, 他们这样做是因为他们想要有一个 比较接近欧洲市场的产品。 但他们不仅仅买走果汁; 也买走了树里的碳 来抵消将产品送进欧洲时 与碳有关的运输成本。 有和糖,咖啡,牛肉一同 被买去的碳。 这就叫捆绑销售,它将这些外部经济效益 带入了这商品的价格中。
We need to take what we've learned in private, voluntary standards of what the best producers in the world are doing and use that to inform government regulation, so we can shift the entire performance curve. We can't just focus on identifying the best; we've got to move the rest.
我们需要把从世界上最好的生产者 那所了解到个人,自发的标准 用来引导政府监管, 我们可以迁移整个效益曲线。 我们不能仅仅盯着最好的; 也一定要带动其他的。
The issue isn't what to think, it's how to think. These companies have begun to think differently. They're on a journey; there's no turning back. We're all on that same journey with them. We have to really begin to change the way we think about everything. Whatever was sustainable on a planet of six billion is not going to be sustainable on a planet with nine.
现在不是该想什么,而是怎么去想的问题。 这些公司已经开始改变思路了。 他们踏上了这条可持续性发展道路,就再也不能退缩了。 我们也在相同的道路上。 我们一定要开始改变 我们对所有事情的看法。 能够支持地球上有60亿人口的做法 在90亿人口的情况下是行不通的。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)