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.
我成長於密蘇里州的一個小農場 大概有15年的時間 我們一天的花費少於一塊美金 我拿到獎學金,去上大學 學習國際農業學跟人類學 我決定要回饋 我想跟小農們一起工作 想幫助消滅貧窮 想致力於國際發展 然而,最後我轉了個彎 落腳於此 不過,如果你拿到博士學位,不想教書 不見得會像我這樣 這是個人選擇。你也許到頭來去開計程車 也許會待在紐約 而我則是 開始跟難民及饑民一起工作 包括小農,及其他所有 一無所有無家可歸的人 我所接受的訓練 為研究這些人的方法學 我曾研究有多少女性 在前往難民營的途上被強暴 有多少人坐過牢 多少家族成員被殺 分析這些人將待多久 而我們需要多少食物才能餵飽他們 這讓我變得非常擅長於預測 我們將需要多少屍袋 來處理將死於難民營中的人
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.
這是神的工作,而不是我的 這不是我該做的事 在1988年,我去了死之華合唱團 在雨林辦的慈善演唱會 我在那遇到相片左邊的這位仁兄 他叫做Ben 他問:「我該怎麼做,才能拯救雨林呢?」 我說:「這個嘛,Ben,你是做什麼的?」 「我做冰淇淋。」 我說:「嗯,你一定得做個 雨林口味的冰淇淋 用雨林特產的堅果 來展現雨林的價值 不僅在它的生產能力而已。」 他說:「好。」 一年內 「雨林堅果」上架了 產品空前的成功 我們靠著每月貸款,在最後一周銷貨 賺進我們第一個一百萬的交易 這真是非常刺激 接著,因為此時我們有能力還款 我們貸了450萬美金 攻下15%到20%,也許是22% 的全球巴西豆市場 我們比別的買家出價高出兩三倍 其他人也跟進出高價 不然就會被我們買走 這策略大為成功 有五十間公司簽約合作,推出兩百項產品 賺進一億美金的利潤 然而我們到底還是失敗了 為什麼呢? 因為採收巴西豆的人 跟砍伐雨林的人不同 而靠著巴西豆賺錢的人 也跟靠砍雨林賺錢的人不同 所以,我們找錯對象了 我們得解決牛肉的問題 我們得解決伐木的問題 我們得解決黃豆的問題 這些我們沒有注意到的問題
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."
回到蘇丹 我常跟難民們說 西方國家的人並不明白 饑荒其實是政治和政策問題 而不是氣候問題 有天,有個農夫跟我提了個 相當卓越的觀點 他說:「你不能叫醒一個正在假寐的人。」
(Laughter)
(笑)
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?
更進一步來說 我們住在這個星球上 眾多星球裡獨一無二的一個 我們得明白這個事實: 除了這資源有限的地球外 我們沒有別的星球了 我們得明白,我們手上的資源有限 我們也許能以不同方式使用資源 就算我們有新想法,創造新資源 但大致來說,資源就是這麼多 沒別的了 有個基礎公式是我們無可避免: 人口數跟資源消耗的乘積 必須與這星球的資源量有相關性 而目前,這兩者並不相當 研究顯示,我們消耗的資源 為1.3倍個地球 從1990年起 我們就越過那條 跟這個星球維持永續關係的線 資源消耗量是地球的1.3倍 如果我們是農夫,我們已在殺雞取卵 若是銀行家,我們本金已開始虧損,而非靠利息過日子 這是我們的現況 有很多人總是把問題 歸咎於其他的徵結 像是人口成長 人口成長是重要原因 但每個人的消耗量也很重要 當美國人生活的 平均消耗量為 非洲人的43倍時 消耗的確是個問題 不光是人口數 也不光是別人的問題,問題是大家的 這也不光是人的問題 問題在於生活方式 有證據顯示─ 關於這點,我們還沒有 經同儕審查的調查方法 來駁回反對意見─ 但是,有相當不錯的證據顯示 歐洲的貓其一生 留下的環境足跡 比其非洲同類高 你還認為這不是進行中的問題嗎? 你還認為這樣的問題不足以讓我們質疑 我們該如何使用地球資源嗎?
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.
回到之前提到的公式 在2000年,地球上有60億人口 他們消費的消費品恆定 以每個人的消費量為一單位 全世界的消費量則為60億單位 在2050年 所有的科學家都同意,人口數將來到90億大關 而此時的消費量將為現在的兩倍 科學家們也同意這點 因為開發中國家的人民收入將為 今日的五倍 全球平均消費量達今日的3倍 這讓全球總消費為180億個消費單位 誰最近聽過一個演講告訴你 我們的食物產量和服務量 必須增加三倍? 這僅只是數學而已 我們沒辦法辦到 我們能夠增加食物產量 我們可以增加產出效率 但其實我們應該減少消費量 必須用更少的 原料來生產 我們使用的資源得比今日少 我們得消費得更少 這些全是那個公式的一部分
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.
然而,伴隨而來的是一個根本問題: 消費者有永續發展、 永續生存的相關產品可選擇嗎? 架上擺了永續、不永續的兩種產品時, 你會選擇永續商品嗎? 或是架上所有的商品都得是永續商品? 在這個資源有限的地球上,該怎麼做 才能讓所有商品都是永續商品? 在美國,消費者花1.8秒決定買什麼 標準放寬一點 假設歐洲人花3.5秒做決定 我們該怎麼評估一項產品的 所有科學資訊 產品數據每週、甚至是每日變動 我們該怎麼獲得這樣的資料呢? 這是做不到的 還有個小問題 從溫室氣體排放的角度來說 在英國養羊 會比在紐西蘭養 最後再冷凍運送到英國好嗎? 一個餵牛吃飼料的糟糕農場 和一個餵牛吃草的糟糕農場相比 誰比較好? 有機馬鈴薯的生產過程 會比傳統種植方式 使用更少的 有毒化學物嗎? 這些問題的答案 都是「看情況」 依照作物是由誰種出、如何種出 答案就不同 還有很多其他的情況 像是:消費者如何避開這些地雷? 才不呢 消費者或許有很多選擇 可是他們得到的訊息卻嚴重不足
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.
永續發展得是個異業結盟的議題 這得是我們所有人共同關心的議題 我們需要串謀 讓從未合作過的廠商結盟 像是食品業的Cargill跟Bunge 飲料業的可口可樂跟百事可樂 互為死對頭的劍橋跟牛津大學 綠色和平組織(環保團體)跟世界自然基金會 所有的人都必須合作 包括中國和美國 我們得開始處理地球的問題 因為這是我們賴以維生的星球 事情就是這樣 從根本來說就是這樣 但是我們也不是什麼都攬在身上 即使我們說服所有人共同解決問題 我們必須有策略 我們必須專注於問題在哪、 問題是什麼、還有由誰來解決 關於「問題在哪」這點: 我們已知全球有35個地點需要保護 這些都是生物多樣性最豐富、 且對於生態系統功能很重要的地方 我們得解決這些地點的問題 眾所周知,我們得保護這些地點 迫切希望有機會拯救當地的生物多樣性 讓我們來看看是哪些因素威脅其環境: 圖上的15個商品 根本上是這些地區最大的威脅 因為其製程造成的 去雨林化、土壤流失、 灌溉、殺蟲劑的使用 跟過漁等
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,我們有35個危險區域、 15個商品 我們該找誰一起來 改變我們製造這些商品的流程? 我們需要69億名消費者的合作嗎? 這牽涉到7000種語言 350種主要語言 實行起來很費力 我不知道有誰真能 有效率的達成這件事 還是,我們跟15億生產者合作呢? 一樣,似乎是個不可能的任務 應該有更好的方法 有300到500家公司 控制這15項商品 七成以上的交易 我們認為這些公司造成的影響最為顯著 如果我們跟他們合作,改變這些公司 跟公司從商的模式 剩下的會自動自發改變 一項一項研究這15項商品 其中有9個 我們擺在一起看 註明是哪些公司 製造它們的 當你看了25-30家 這些商品的製造者 你會發現 欸!除了Cargill,還是Cargill 這些東西全跟Cargill有關 因為這些公司不斷出現在名單上 我們用了另一個稍微不一樣的方法分析: 名單上頭100個公司裡 有多少比例 包辦這15項商品的 經手、購買跟轉賣? 約為25% 所以,這100個公司 控制了這星球 15個最重要的商品 25%的交易 我們可以張開雙手擁抱這100間公司 跟這100間公司合作
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.
為什麼這25%的交易重要? 因為如果這些公司要求產品永續生產 就會有40%到50%的產品為綠色商品 生產者推動綠色消費 會比消費者自發快 當生產者有這樣的要求 矯正生產過程的缺失 會比等待消費者主動消費來的更快 全球的有機食物運動花了40年 也只讓有機食物佔 全球食物0.7%的比重 我們沒辦法等這麼久了 我們沒有這樣的時間 我們需要 加速度的改變 即使跟每一個公司合作 或許無法讓我們達成目標 我們還是得開始跟產業合作 因此我們召開圓桌會議 聚集產業鏈中 所有的生產者 品牌廠商跟經銷商 我們讓公民團體、非政府組織、 學者、科學家、 跟產業界一起進行討論 ─過程有時跟小說《大逃殺》很像─ 來找出這些產品對環境的 主要衝擊為何 全球的標準為何 可接受的環境衝擊為何 並據此設計評量標準 這過程一點也不有趣,更不是遊戲
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.
針對鮭魚養殖業 約在6年前 我們開了圓桌會議 8個團體出席 我想,最後我們集合了這個產業 生產端的60% 跟消費端的25% 這8個團體中的3個當時正互相打官司 然而一週後,我們還是推動了 全球皆同意、一體適用及認證的 鮭魚養殖標準 這是可以辦到的
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
是什麼讓這8個立場不同的團體 都出現在會議上呢? 這其中有許多風險跟要求 對大公司而言,可能會賠上商譽 但更重要的 他們不在乎商品的價錢 如果沒有商品,就沒有交易 所以他們在乎的是商品的取得 而對他們來說,最大的風險在於沒有產品 對製造商來說 消費者希望購買以某些方式生產的產品 是讓這些人來開會的動力 是消費者的需求帶他們上會議桌 好消息是 根據兩年前調查選出的100間公司中 在過去18個月裡,有40家 跟我們簽署同意書 願意跟我們合作改善供應鏈 在未來的18個月 我們將努力說服其他40家公司簽署 而我們認為,取得他們的同意書是沒問題的 我們正努力讓這80間 大企業的執行長合作 協助改變最後20家公司的觀念 讓他們也願意參與這個會議 因為這些公司不喜歡,也從未跟非政府組織合作 擔心這個,擔心那個 但我們需要大家的共同合作 所以我們得移除所有障礙 借力使力讓這些公司加入我們的行列
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.
其中一間剛開始跟我們合作的公司 是也許還在蹣跚學步 但已經走上製造永續商品旅程的Cargill 其贊助的研究顯示 未來20年,我們一棵樹都不需要砍 就能讓全球棕櫚油的產量加倍 而且只要在婆羅洲 已經荒蕪的地上種植棕櫚即可 研究顯示,棕櫚油淨產量 最高的地方 為漠化區 Cargill也正在研究 他們供應的所有棕櫚油 可不可以得到認證 及為了通過有公信力的第三者評鑑機構認證 他們得做出哪些改變 為什麼Cargill如此重要? 因為這家公司的全球棕櫚油市占率 為20%到25% 當Cargill下定決心 整個棕櫚油生產工業、 或至少40%到50%會跟著改變 這就不是件小事了 更重要的,Cargill跟另一家公司 提供中國一半的 進口棕櫚油 我們不需要改變任何一家 中國公司的生產方式 只要我們讓Cargill將 以永續生產的棕櫚油輸入中國 這種進入市場前的產品改變 所有在中國的棕櫚油將是好油 可以放心購買
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.
Mars也朝著同樣的方向前進 大部分的人都知道Mars是一家巧克力公司 但是Mars在永續議題上承諾 他們只購買認證的海鮮為原料 因為生產寵物飼料 Mars採買的海鮮比沃爾瑪還多 但Mars也針對巧克力生產進行一些有意思的計畫 這是因為Mars希望 他們未來在市場上仍有競爭力 Mars注意到,他們需要 改進巧克力生產的過程 在任何一塊農地上 八成的可可豆只由兩成的可可樹生產 於是Mars研究可可樹基因體 為可可樹的基因定序 他們跟IBM和美國農業部合作 公開可可樹的基因序列 因為Mars希望所有人都能看到這些數據 讓大家都來幫助他們 使可可樹的產率提高,讓生產過程更永續 他們明白 如果能夠找到 產量高且耐旱的表型 就能在目前四成的農地上 讓產率提高3.2倍 這樣剩下的農地就能做為他用 這更多的是關於省還要更省 我們的未來必須要這樣 將資訊公開很高明 Mars不想當個智慧財產公司,他們想當個巧克力公司 但他們更想當個永續的巧克力公司
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.
當許多人抱怨食物的價格時 然而,怪的是,食物價格其實正在降低 這是因為,事實上 消費者並沒有為食物真正的成本付出代價 以四種常見的產品而言 當你去研究這些農產品 水的使用,你會知道 農夫用多少原料來生產這些產品 我們知道農夫生產這些商品使用的水量 也知道農夫的收入 將水量除以 農夫的收入 你會發現,農夫的收入不足以負擔 生產這些農產品時所需的水 這就是所謂的外部效應 即產品生產時,自然界付出的成本 可口可樂在水資源上下了許多工夫 現在,他們跟土耳其的農夫 簽下一紙17年的合約 以利在歐洲銷售他們的果汁 之所以這麼做,是因為他們希望 在接近歐洲市場處生產產品 如此一來,他們不僅只是買果汁 還省了將產品運送到歐洲時 燃燒樹木釋放的碳足跡 及其相關成本 在我們買糖、咖啡、牛肉時 都會有這樣的碳足跡 藉著外部成本內部化 商品價格將包含環境的外部成本
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.
我們需要應用從世界最好的製造商那裡 學來的私人或公益團體制定的標準 以型塑政府規範 改變整個生產曲線 我們不只得找出最好的產業 還得改變其他的產業
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.
重點不在於思考目的,而在於過程 這些公司已經開始改變思考模式 他們走在改革的路上,沒有回頭的路 我們也在同一條船上 我們得真正開始改變 我們看待萬物的方式 能讓一個60億人口的星球永續發展的方式 在90億人口的星球上是不會有一樣的效果的
Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)