Ovdje sam da bih govorio o ekonomskoj nevidljivosti prirode. Loša vijest je da "back office" Majke Prirode još ne radi tako da ne može izdavati fakture. Ipak moramo učiniti nešto po tom pitanju. U životu sam počeo kao tržišni stručnjak i nastavio sam se time baviti, ali većina mojih nedavnih napora bio je da sagledam vrijednosti onoga što ljudi koriste iz prirode, i što nije tržišno vrednovano.
I'm here to talk to you about the economic invisibility of nature. The bad news is that mother nature's back office isn't working yet, so those invoices don't get issued. But we need to do something about this problem. I began my life as a markets professional and continued to take an interest, but most of my recent effort has been looking at the value of what comes to human beings from nature, and which doesn't get priced by the markets.
Projekat nazvan TEEB počeo je 2007, i pokrenula ga je grupa koji su činili ministri okoliša zemalja G8+5. Njiihova osnovna inspiracija bio je strogi izveštaj Lorda Sterna. Zapitali su sami sebe: Ako ekonomisti mogu napravitl tako uvjeljive argumente za rani odgovor na klimatske promjene, zašto se isto ne bi moglo uraditi za konzervaciju okoliša? Zašto ekvivalentan slučaj ne bi bio i za zaštitu prirode? I odgovor je: Pa, može. Ali to nije tako jednostavno. Biodiverzitet, živa materija ove planete, nije plin. On je višeslojan, ekosistemi, vrste i geni na različitim nivoima- međunarodnom, državnom, lokalnom, mjesnom- i učiniti za prirodu ono što su Lord Stern i njegov tim učinili za prirodu nije jednostavno.
A project called TEEB was started in 2007, and it was launched by a group of environment ministers of the G8+5. And their basic inspiration was a stern review of Lord Stern. They asked themselves a question: If economics could make such a convincing case for early action on climate change, well why can't the same be done for conservation? Why can't an equivalent case be made for nature? And the answer is: Yeah, it can. But it's not that straightforward. Biodiversity, the living fabric of this planet, is not a gas. It exists in many layers, ecosystems, species and genes across many scales -- international, national, local, community -- and doing for nature what Lord Stern and his team did for nature is not that easy.
A ipak, počeli smo. Počeli smo projekat privremenim izvještajem koji smo brzo pripremili i za koji je prikupljeno mnogo informacija uz učešće mnogo, mnogo istraživača. I među prikupljenim rezultatima bio je zapanjujuće otkriće da, u stvari gubimo prirodni kapital - - koristi koje pritiču od prirode ka nama. Gubimo ih po nevjerovatnoj stopi- u stvari, u razmjeru vrijednosti od dva do četiri triliona dolara prirodnog kapitala. Ovo je objavljeno 2008, što je, naravno, otprilike u vrijeme kada se pojavila i bankarska kriza u kojoj smo izgubili kapital vrijednosti od dva i pol triliona dolara. Dakle, ovo je bilo uporedivo sa takvim gubitkom. Zatim smo ovo počeli predstavljati međunarodnoj zajednici, vladama, lokalnim upravama i preduzećima i ljudima, poput vas i mene; mnoštvo izvještaja prezentiranih u UN-u prošle godine, bavilo se ekonomskom nevidljivošću prirode i opisivalo šta se može uraditi da se to ispravi.
And yet, we began. We began the project with an interim report, which quickly pulled together a lot of information that had been collected on the subject by many, many researchers. And amongst our compiled results was the startling revelation that, in fact, we were losing natural capital -- the benefits that flow from nature to us. We were losing it at an extraordinary rate -- in fact, of the order of two to four trillion dollars-worth of natural capital. This came out in 2008, which was, of course, around the time that the banking crisis had shown that we had lost financial capital of the order of two and a half trillion dollars. So this was comparable in size to that kind of loss. We then have gone on since to present for [the] international community, for governments, for local governments and for business and for people, for you and me, a whole slew of reports, which were presented at the U.N. last year, which address the economic invisibility of nature and describe what can be done to solve it.
O čemu se zapravo radi? Slika koja je svima poznata-- Amazonske prašume. To je ogromna zaliha ugljena, zapanjujući biodiverzitet, ali ono što ljudi ne znaju to je takođe proizvođač kiša. Zbog sjeveroistočnih vjetrova koji prelaze preko Amazona, efikasno skupljaju vodena isparenja. Nešto oko 20 milijardi tona dnevno vodenih isparenja je usisano u sjeveroistočne tropske vjetrove, i pojavljuje se u vidu kiša na području sliva La Plate. Ovo kruženje, ova fabrika kišnice, efikasno hrani poljoprivrednu ekonomiju vrijednosti 240 milijardi dolara u Latinskoj Americi. Ali se postavlja pitanje: U redu, koliko onda Urugvaj, Paragvaj, Argentina i zapravo država Mato Grosso u Brazilu plaćaju za taj važni doprinos ekonomiji državi Amazon, koja proizvodi svu tu kišnicu? I odgovor je -ništa, zapravo nula. To je ekonomska nevidljivost prirode. To se ne može održati jer ekonomski razlozi i prepreke su veoma snažne. Ekonomija je postala valuta politike. I dok ne odgovorimo na ovu nevidljivost, nastavićemo dobijati rezultate koje sada vidimo, odnosno postepenu degradaciju i gubitke ove vrijedne prirodne imovine.
What is this about? A picture that you're familiar with -- the Amazon rainforests. It's a massive store of carbon, it's an amazing store of biodiversity, but what people don't really know is this also is a rain factory. Because the northeastern trade winds, as they go over the Amazonas, effectively gather the water vapor. Something like 20 billion tons per day of water vapor is sucked up by the northeastern trade winds, and eventually precipitates in the form of rain across the La Plata Basin. This rainfall cycle, this rainfall factory, effectively feeds an agricultural economy of the order of 240 billion dollars-worth in Latin America. But the question arises: Okay, so how much do Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and indeed the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil pay for that vital input to that economy to the state of Amazonas, which produces that rainfall? And the answer is zilch, exactly zero. That's the economic invisibility of nature. That can't keep going on, because economic incentives and disincentives are very powerful. Economics has become the currency of policy. And unless we address this invisibility, we are going to get the results that we are seeing, which is a gradual degradation and loss of this valuable natural asset.
Ne radi se ramo o Amazonu, ili o prašumama. Nije važne gdje pogledate, bilo da se radi o nivou ekosistema, vrsta ili genetskom nivou, vidimo isti problem uvijek iznova. Isto važi i za kruženje vode i regulaciju putem prašuma na nivou ekosistema. Na nivou vrsta, procjenjuje se da oprašivanje koje vrše insekti kao što pčele oprašuju cvjetove voća i slično ima vrijednost od oko 190 milijardi dolara. To predstavlja oko osam procenata ukupnog poljoprivrednog proizvoda na globalnom nivou. Prolazi "ispod radara" u potpunosti. Ali, da li vam je pčela ikad ispostavila fakturu? Ili, u tom smislu, ako se osvrnemo na nivou genetike 60 procenata ispitanih lijekova pronađeni su prvo kao molekule u prašumama ili na grebenima I opet, većina od toga se ne plaća.
It's not just about the Amazonas, or indeed about rainforests. No matter what level you look at, whether it's at the ecosystem level or at the species level or at the genetic level, we see the same problem again and again. So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests at an ecosystem level. At the species level, it's been estimated that insect-based pollination, bees pollinating fruit and so on, is something like 190 billion dollars-worth. That's something like eight percent of the total agricultural output globally. It completely passes below the radar screen. But when did a bee actually ever give you an invoice? Or for that matter, if you look at the genetic level, 60 percent of medicines were prospected, were found first as molecules in a rainforest or a reef. Once again, most of that doesn't get paid.
I to me dovodi do drugog aspekta priče, koje glasi, kome bi se to i trebalo platiti? Taj genetički materijal vjerovatno pripada, ako bi trebao ikome pripadati, lokalnoj zajednici siromašnih ljudi koji su učestvovali sa svojim znanjem koje je pomoglo istraživačima da pronađu molekule, koje su postale lijekovi. Oni su ti koji nisu plaćeni. I ako pogledate na nivo vrsta, recimo, riba. Danas, trošenje zaliha ribe u okeanima je tako značajno da utiče na mogućnosti siromašnih, ribara po zanimanju i onih koji love ribu za svoja domaćinstva, da osiguraju egzistenciju. Oko milijarde ljudi zavisi od ribe, odnosno količine ribe u okeanima. milijarda ljudi zavisi od ribe kao osnovnog izvora proteina u ishrani. I po stopi po kojoj gubimo ribu, to postaje problem čovječanstva ogromnih razmjera, zdravstveni problem kakav još nismo vidjeli. I na kraju, na nivou ekosistema, bez obzira da li je u pitanju prevencija poplava ili kontrola suše kakvu pružaju prašume, i da li siromašni farmeri mogu izaći i prikupiti hrpu lišća za njihovu stoku i koze, i da li su njihove žene u mogućnosti izaći i prikupiti drvo za ogrev iz šume, u principu su siromašni oni koji najviše zavise od usluga ovih ekosistema.
And that brings me to another aspect of this, which is, to whom should this get paid? That genetic material probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone, to a local community of poor people who parted with the knowledge that helped the researchers to find the molecule, which then became the medicine. They were the ones that didn't get paid. And if you look at the species level, you saw about fish. Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor, the artisanal fisher folk and those who fish for their own livelihoods, to feed their families. Something like a billion people depend on fish, the quantity of fish in the oceans. A billion people depend on fish for their main source for animal protein. And at this rate at which we are losing fish, it is a human problem of enormous dimensions, a health problem of a kind we haven't seen before. And finally, at the ecosystem level, whether it's flood prevention or drought control provided by the forests, or whether it is the ability of poor farmers to go out and gather leaf litter for their cattle and goats, or whether it's the ability of their wives to go and collect fuel wood from the forest, it is actually the poor who depend most on these ecosystem services.
Mi smo u našoj studiji procijenili da zemlje poput Brazila, Indije i Indonezije, kroz usluge svojih ekosistema-- koristi koje dolaze iz prirode čovječanstvu besplatno-- nisu veoma velike u procentualnim iznosima GDP-a dva, četiri, šest, 10,15 procenata-- ali u ovim zemljama, ako mjerimo koliko oni vrijede siromašnima, odgovoro su bliže 45 procenata, 75 ili čak 90 procenata. U tome je razlika. Jer su oni važni za siromašne. I ne možete zaista napraviti odgovarajući model za razvoj ako istovremeno uništavate ili dozvoljavate degradaciju imovine, veoma važne imovine, koja je vaša razvojna imovina, a to je ekološka infrastruktura.
We did estimates in our study that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia, even though ecosystem services -- these benefits that flow from nature to humanity for free -- they're not very big in percentage terms of GDP -- two, four, eight, 10, 15 percent -- but in these countries, if we measure how much they're worth to the poor, the answers are more like 45 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent. That's the difference. Because these are important benefits for the poor. And you can't really have a proper model for development if at the same time you're destroying or allowing the degradation of the very asset, the most important asset, which is your development asset, that is ecological infrastructure.
Koliko se situacija može pogoršati? Ovdje imamo ilustraciju nečega nazvanog prosječno mnoštvo vrsta. U principu to je mjera koliko tigrova, žaba krastača, krpelja itd u prosjeku biomase raznih vrsta postoji. Zeleno predstavlja procente. Ako počinjete zeleno, to je kao 80 ili 100 procenata. Žuto predstavlja 40 do 60 procenata. I ovo su procenti u odnosu na početno stanje, da tako kažemo, u preindustrijskoj eri, 1750.
How bad can things get? Well here a picture of something called the mean species abundance. It's basically a measure of how many tigers, toads, ticks or whatever on average of biomass of various species are around. The green represents the percentage. If you start green, it's like 80 to 100 percent. If it's yellow, it's 40 to 60 percent. And these are percentages versus the original state, so to speak, the pre-industrial era, 1750.
Sada ću vam pokazati kako ignorantsko ponašanje utiče na ovo. I samo gledajte promjenu boja u Indiji, Kini, Evropi, sub-Saharskoj Africi kako se krećemo i trošimo globalnu biomasu. po stopi koja nas u svari ne može održati. Pogledajte ponovo. Jedino mjesto koje ostaje zeleno--i to nije dobra vijest-- su u stvari mjesta poput pustinje Gobi, tundra i poput Sahare. Ali to ne pomaže jer tamo je i bilo veoma malo vrsta i obim biomase je bio mali i na početku. To je izazov. Razlog zašto se to dešava svodi se, po mom mišljenju, na osnovni problem, koji je naša nesposobnost da vidimo razliku između javnog dobra i privatnog profita. Težimo ka tome da konstantno ignorišemo javnu dobrobit jednostavno jer to pripada svima, jer je za opštu upotrebu.
Now I'm going to show you how business as usual will affect this. And just watch the change in colors in India, China, Europe, sub-Saharan Africa as we move on and consume global biomass at a rate which is actually not going to be able to sustain us. See that again. The only places that remain green -- and that's not good news -- is, in fact, places like the Gobi Desert, like the tundra and like the Sahara. But that doesn't help because there were very few species and volume of biomass there in the first place. This is the challenge. The reason this is happening boils down, in my mind, to one basic problem, which is our inability to perceive the difference between public benefits and private profits. We tend to constantly ignore public wealth simply because it is in the common wealth, it's common goods.
I ovdje je primjer s Tajlanda gdje smo pronašli, jer vrijednost mangrova nije tako velika-- jeste 600 dolara kroz životni vijek od devet godina koliko je to mjereno-- u poređenju sa njegovom vrijednošću u vidu uzgajališta škampa kada raste do 9.600 dolara postoji postepeni trend iskorjenjivanja mongrova i njihovog pretvaranja u farme škampa. Naravno, ako gledamo jednostavno o kolikom profitu se radi, oko 8.000 tih dolara su, u stvari, subvencije. Tako, kada uporedite dvije strane medalje vidjećete da se radi o poređenju 1.200 sa 600. To nije tako teško.
And here's an example from Thailand where we found that, because the value of a mangrove is not that much -- it's about $600 over the life of nine years that this has been measured -- compared to its value as a shrimp farm, which is more like $9,600, there has been a gradual trend to deplete the mangroves and convert them to shrimp farms. But of course, if you look at exactly what those profits are, almost 8,000 of those dollars are, in fact, subsidies. So you compare the two sides of the coin and you find that it's more like 1,200 to 600. That's not that hard.
Ali, sa druge strane, ako počnemo mjeriti, koliko bi to zapravo koštalo da se zemljište koje se koristi za farmu škampa vrati za proizvodnu namjenu? Kada izloženost solima i hemijskim tvarima napravi svoje efekte, odgovor je da trošak dostiže 12.000 dolara I ako vidite koristi mangrova u smislu zaštite od oluja i ciklonske zaštite koju dobijate i u smislu ribarenja, ribogojilišta, koji hrane siromašne, tada je odgovor bilži 11.000 dolara. Pogledajmo sada kroz drzgačiju prizmu. Ako posmatrate javno dobro nasuprot gledištu privatnog profita, dobijate potpuno drugačiji odgovor, koji je da zaštita ima više smisla, nego uništavanje.
But on the other hand, if you start measuring, how much would it actually cost to restore the land of the shrimp farm back to productive use? Once salt deposition and chemical deposition has had its effects, that answer is more like $12,000 of cost. And if you see the benefits of the mangrove in terms of the storm protection and cyclone protection that you get and in terms of the fisheries, the fish nurseries, that provide fish for the poor, that answer is more like $11,000. So now look at the different lens. If you look at the lens of public wealth as against the lens of private profits, you get a completely different answer, which is clearly conservation makes more sense, and not destruction.
Dakle, da li je ovo priča iz Južnog Tajlanda? Žao mi je, ovo je globalna priča. I ovdje vidimo kako bi ista kalkulacija izgledala, urađena je nedavno--recimo, u zadnjih desetak godina-- u grupi zvanoj TRUCOST. Oni su uzeli u obzir najvećih 300 korporacija, i šta su procjene? Drugim riječima, koji su troškovi nečinjenja? Ovdje se ne radi o nečemu ilegalnom, ovo je zapravo nastavak uobičajane prakse koja uzrokuje emisije koje utiču na klimatske promjene, koje imaju ekonomsku vrijednost. Uzrokuje zagađenje, koje ima ekonomsku vrijednost, troškove zdravstva i tako dalje. Korištenje pitke vode. Ako pravite bunar da proizvodite koks blizu seoske farme, to nije ilegalno, ali da, to košta zajednicu.
So is this just a story from South Thailand? Sorry, this is a global story. And here's what the same calculation looks like, which was done recently -- well I say recently, over the last 10 years -- by a group called TRUCOST. And they calculated for the top 3,000 corporations, what are the externalities? In other words, what are the costs of doing business as usual? This is not illegal stuff, this is basically business as usual, which causes climate-changing emissions, which have an economic cost. It causes pollutants being issued, which have an economic cost, health cost and so on. Use of freshwater. If you drill water to make coke near a village farm, that's not illegal, but yes, it costs the community.
Možemo li ovo zaustaviti, i kako? MIslim da je prvi korak koji treba učiniti vrednovanje prirodnog kapitala. U principu, prirodni kapital je životna supstanca, i to treba prepoznati i ugraditi u naše sisteme. Kada mjerimo GDP kao pokazatelj ekonomski performansi na državnom nivou, ne uključujemo najveću imovinu koju zemlja ima. Kada mjerimo performanse kompanija, ne uključujemo uticaj na prirodu i troškove koje kompanije uzrokuju društvu. To mora prestati. U stvari, to je zaista inspirisalo moj interes u ovoj fazi. Počeo sam projekat nazvan Projekat zelenog računovodstva. To je bilo početkom 2000-tih kada je Indija bila zaluđena rastom GDP-a kao sredstvom napretka-- gledajući kako Kina ima visoke stope raste of osam, devet, deset procenata i pitajući se, možemo li i mi isto tako? Nekoliko mojih prijatelja i ja zaključili smo da to nema smisla. To će koštati društvo mnogo više i uzrokovati gubitke. Zato smo odlučili uraditi ogromnu kalkulaciju i počeli praviti zelena konta za Indiju i njene pokrajine. Tako je počeo moj interes i razvio se u TEEB projekat Kalkulacija ovoga na državnom nivou je jedan dio toga, i to je već započeto. Svjetska banka je ovo prepoznala i oni su počeli projekat WAVES-- Svjetsko računovodstvo i vrednovanje usluga ekosistema.
Can we stop this, and how? I think the first point to make is that we need to recognize natural capital. Basically the stuff of life is natural capital, and we need to recognize and build that into our systems. When we measure GDP as a measure of economic performance at the national level, we don't include our biggest asset at the country level. When we measure corporate performances, we don't include our impacts on nature and what our business costs society. That has to stop. In fact, this was what really inspired my interest in this phase. I began a project way back called the Green Accounting Project. That was in the early 2000s when India was going gung-ho about GDP growth as the means forward -- looking at China with its stellar growths of eight, nine, 10 percent and wondering, why can we do the same? And a few friends of mine and I decided this doesn't make sense. This is going to create more cost to society and more losses. So we decided to do a massive set of calculations and started producing green accounts for India and its states. That's how my interests began and went to the TEEB project. Calculating this at the national level is one thing, and it has begun. And the World Bank has acknowledged this and they've started a project called WAVES -- Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services.
Ali kalkulacijom ovoga na sljedećem nivou. to znači na nivou poslovnog sektora, je važno. I to smo u stvari uradili sa ovim TEEB projektom. Učinili smo to za sasvim drugi slučaj, koji je deforestacija u Kini. To je važno, jer u Kini 1997, Žuta rijeka je presušila tokom devet mjeseci uzrokujući ogromne gubitke poljoprivredne proizvodnje i bolne gubitke društvu. Samo godinu dana nakon toga Jangce je poplavio, uzrokujući smrt oko 5000 ljudi. Bilo je jasno da postoji problem deforestacije. Bio je povezan uglavnom sa sektorom graditeljstva.
But calculating this at the next level, that means at the business sector level, is important. And actually we've done this with the TEEB project. We've done this for a very difficult case, which was for deforestation in China. This is important, because in China in 1997, the Yellow River actually went dry for nine months causing severe loss of agriculture output and pain and loss to society. Just a year later the Yangtze flooded, causing something like 5,500 deaths. So clearly there was a problem with deforestation. It was associated largely with the construction industry.
I Kineska vlada je postupila smisleno i zabranila sječu. Retrospektiva kroz 40 godina pokazuje da, kad bismo uračunali ove troškove-- troškove gubitka površinskog sloja tla troškove gubitka vodene mase izgubljena produktivnost, trošak za lokalne zajednice kao rezultat ovih faktora, dezertifikacija i tako dalje-- troškovi bi vili dvostruko veći od tržišne vrijednosti balvana Tako da , u stvari, cijena drveta na tržištu Beijinga mora biti trostruko veća da bi odrazila stvari bol i trošak društva u Kini. Naravno, lako je naknadno biti pametan.
And the Chinese government responded sensibly and placed a ban on felling. A retrospective on 40 years shows that if we had accounted for these costs -- the cost of loss of topsoil, the cost of loss of waterways, the lost productivity, the loss to local communities as a result of all these factors, desertification and so on -- those costs are almost twice as much as the market price of timber. So in fact, the price of timber in the Beijing marketplace ought to have been three-times what it was had it reflected the true pain and the costs to the society within China. Of course, after the event one can be wise.
Način da se to uradi je na nivou kompanije, da se preuzme vodstvo, i da se to uradti u mnogim važnim sektorima koji imaju trošak, i da se objave ti odgovori. Neko me pitao, ko je bolji li gori da li je to Unilever ili P&G Kad se radi o njihovom uticaju na prašume u Indoneziji. Nisam mogao odgovoriti jer ni jedna od pomenutih kompanija, iako su dobre i profesionalne, ne radi kalkulaciju niti objavljuje eksternalije.
The way to do this is to do it on a company basis, to take leadership forward, and to do it for as many important sectors which have a cost, and to disclose these answers. Someone once asked me, "Who is better or worse, is it Unilever or is it P&G when it comes to their impact on rainforests in Indonesia?" And I couldn't answer because neither of these companies, good though they are and professional though they are, do not calculate or disclose their externalities.
Ali ako pogledamo kopmanije kao što je PUMA-- Jochen Zeitz, njihov direktor i predsjednik Uprave, jednom me izazvao na funkciji, govoreći da će implementirati moj projekat prije nego što ga završim. Pa, ja sam mislio da smo ga uradili istovremeno, ali ga je on uradio. Zapravo je obradio troškove za PUMU. PUMA ima 2,7 milijardi dolara obrta, 300 miliona dolara dobiti, 200 miliiona dolara nakon oporezivanja, 94 miliona dolara eksternalija, troškova za biznis. Sada to nije zadovoljavajuća situacija za njih, ali su imali smjelosti i samouvjerenosti da izađu pred javnost i kažu:"Ovo smo izračunali. Mi to mjerimo jer znamo da se nemože upravljati onim što se ne izmjeri."
But if we look at companies like PUMA -- Jochen Zeitz, their CEO and chairman, once challenged me at a function, saying that he's going to implement my project before I finish it. Well I think we kind of did it at the same time, but he's done it. He's basically worked the cost to PUMA. PUMA has 2.7 billion dollars of turnover, 300 million dollars of profits, 200 million dollars after tax, 94 million dollars of externalities, cost to business. Now that's not a happy situation for them, but they have the confidence and the courage to come forward and say, "Here's what we are measuring. We are measuring it because we know that you cannot manage what you do not measure."
To je jedan primjer, mislim, za nas da se ugledamo i da se oslonimo na njega. Kada bi više kompanija ovo radilo, i ako bi se više sektora uključilo na nivou sektora, mogli biste imali analitičare, poslovne analitičare, i mogli biste imati ljude poput nas i potrošače i udruženja zaista posmatrajući društvene performanse kompanija. Danas to još ne možemo uraditi, ali mislim da je put iscrtan. To se može uraditi. Veoma mi je drago da je Institut profesionalnih računovođa u Velikoj Britaniji već osnovao koaliciju da ovo uradi, međunarodnu koaliciju.
That's an example, I think, for us to look at and for us to draw comfort from. If more companies did this, and if more sectors engaged this as sectors, you could have analysts, business analysts, and you could have people like us and consumers and NGOs actually look and compare the social performance of companies. Today we can't yet do that, but I think the path is laid out. This can be done. And I'm delighted that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in the U.K. has already set up a coalition to do this, an international coalition.
Drugo poželjno, ako dozvolite, rješenje po momo mišljenju je kreiranje tržišta zelenog ugljika. I usput, ovo su moji favoriti-- kalkulacija eksternalija i tržišta zelenog ugljika. TEEB ima više od tuceta različitih grupa rješenja uključujući procjenu zaštićenih zona i plaćanje za usluge ekosistema. i eko-certifikacija i šta god još, a ovo su moji favoriti. Šta je zeleni ugljik? Ono što danas postoji su tržišta smeđeg ugljka. Radi se o emisiji energije. ETS Evropske unije je najveće tržište. Ne funkcioniše baš najbolje. Previše trošimo. Nešto kao inflacija: previše izdajete valute, i desi se rezultat u smanjenju njihovih cijena. Ali radi se o energiji i industriji.
The other favorite, if you like, solution for me is the creation of green carbon markets. And by the way, these are my favorites -- externalities calculation and green carbon markets. TEEB has more than a dozen separate groups of solutions including protected area evaluation and payments for ecosystem services and eco-certification and you name it, but these are the favorites. What's green carbon? Today what we have is basically a brown carbon marketplace. It's about energy emissions. The European Union ETS is the main marketplace. It's not doing too well. We've over-issued. A bit like inflation: you over-issue currency, you get what you see, declining prices. But that's all about energy and industry.
A ono što nam nedostaje su neke druge emisije kao crni ugljik, to je čađ. Šta još nedostaje je plavi ugljik, koji je, u stvari, najveća zaliha ugljika-- više od 55 procenata. Srećom, tok, ili drugačije rečeno emisija iz okeana u atmosferu i obratno, je više ili manje balansirana. U stvari, ono što se apsorbuje je oko 25 procenata naših emisija, koji zatim vode do kiselosti ili prekomjerne bazičnosti u okenima. Više o tome za minut.
But what we're missing is also some other emissions like black carbon, that is soot. What we're also missing is blue carbon, which, by the way, is the largest store of carbon -- more than 55 percent. Thankfully, the flux, in other words, the flow of emissions from the ocean to the atmosphere and vice versa, is more or less balanced. In fact, what's being absorbed is something like 25 percent of our emissions, which then leads to acidification or lower alkalinity in oceans. More of that in a minute.
I na kraju, tu je deforestacija, i tu je misija metana iz poljoprivrede. Zeleni ugljik, koji je deforestacija i poljopriredne emisije, i plavi ugljik zajedno čine 25 procenata naših emisija. Imamo sredstva već u našim rukama kroz strukturu, kroz mehanizam, nazvan REDD Plus-- šemu za smanjenje emisija od deforestacije i uništavanja šuma. I već je Norveška dala doprinos od po milijardu dolara za svaki prema Indoneziji i Brazilu da implementiraju Red Plus šemu. Tako da sad imamo momentum. Ali bitno je učiniti više od toga.
And finally, there's deforestation, and there's emission of methane from agriculture. Green carbon, which is the deforestation and agricultural emissions, and blue carbon together comprise 25 percent of our emissions. We have the means already in our hands, through a structure, through a mechanism, called REDD Plus -- a scheme for the reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. And already Norway has contributed a billion dollars each towards Indonesia and Brazil to implement this Red Plus scheme. So we actually have some movement forward. But the thing is to do a lot more of that.
Hoće li ovo riješiti problem? Hoće li ekonomija riješiti sve? Bojim se da neće. Tu je i područje okeana, koraljnih grebena. Kao što možete vidjeti, prostiru se širom zemaljske kugle sve od Mikronezije preko Indonezije, Malezije, Indije, Madagaskara do zapada na Karibima. Ove crvene tačke, ta crvena područja, u stvari pružaju hranu i preživljavanje za više od pola milijarde ljudi. Znači, to je skoro osmina društva. I tužno je da, kada bismo izgubili te koraljne grebene-- a naučnici nam kažu da bilo koji nivo ugljen dioksida u atmosferi iznad 350 dijelova na milion je suviše opasan za opstanak ovih grebena-- ne samo da rizikujemo istrebljenje čitave vrste koralja, toplovodne koralje, ne rizikujemo samo četvrtinu ribljih vrsta koji su u okeanima, nego rizikujemo i same živote i egzistenciju više od 500 miliona ljudi koji žive su siromašnim zemljama u razvoju.
Will this solve the problem? Will economics solve everything? Well I'm afraid not. There is an area that is the oceans, coral reefs. As you can see, they cut across the entire globe all the way from Micronesia across Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Madagascar and to the West of the Caribbean. These red dots, these red areas, basically provide the food and livelihood for more than half a billion people. So that's almost an eighth of society. And the sad thing is that, as these coral reefs are lost -- and scientists tell us that any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above 350 parts per million is too dangerous for the survival of these reefs -- we are not only risking the extinction of the entire coral species, the warm water corals, we're not only risking a fourth of all fish species which are in the oceans, but we are risking the very lives and livelihoods of more than 500 million people who live in the developing world in poor countries.
Tako da odabir cilja na 450 dijelova od milion i odabir dva stepena na klimatskim pregovorima, što smo učinili je bio etički izbor. Učinili smo zapravo etički izbor u društvu da nemamo koraljne grebene. Zapravo što vam ja kažem djelimično je da smo to mogli uraditi. Razmislimo o tome i šta to znači, ali, ne činimo to više. Jer Majka Priroda ima samo toliko u ekološkoj infrastrukturi i toliko prirodnog kapitala. Mislim da ne možemo priuštiti mnogo ovakvih etičkih odabira.
So in selecting targets of 450 parts per million and selecting two degrees at the climate negotiations, what we have done is we've made an ethical choice. We've actually kind of made an ethical choice in society to not have coral reefs. Well what I will say to you in parting is that we may have done that. Let's think about it and what it means, but please, let's not do more of that. Because mother nature only has that much in ecological infrastructure and that much natural capital. I don't think we can afford too much of such ethical choices.
Hvala.
Thank you.
(Aplauz)
(Applause)