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.
Ovdje sam kako bih vam pričao o ekonomskoj nevidljivosti prirode. Loša vijest je da ured majke prirode još nije proradio pa svi računi ne prolaze. Moramo nešto učiniti po ovom problemu. Počeo sam svoj život kao stručnjak za tržište i to me nastavilo zanimati, no većina mog nedavnog rada je bila promatranje vrijednosti onoga što ljudima dolazi iz prirode, i što nema tržišne cijene.
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.
Projekt zvan TEEB je započet 2007., i pokrenut je od grupe ministara okoliša grupe G8+5. Osnovna inspiracija je bio strog osvrt Lorda Sterna. Pitali su se: Ako ekonomija može izvesti tako uvjerljiv slučaj za rano djelovanje po pitanju klimatskih promjena, zašto ne može isto biti učinjeno za očuvanje? Zašto isti slučaj ne može biti napravljen za prirodu? Odgovor je: Da, može. Samo ne toliko izravno. Bioraznolikost, živo tkanje ovog planeta, nije plin. Postoji u mnogo slojeva, ekosustavi, vrste i geni kroz mnogo mjera, -- internacionalno, nacionalno, lokalno, u zajednici -- a raditi za prirodu ono što su radili Lord Stern i njegov tim za prirodu, nije lagano.
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.
No, počeli smo. Počeli smo projekt privremenim izvještajem koji je brzo prikupio mnogo informacija koje su skupljene na tu temu uz pomoć velikog broja istraživača. U tim zbirnim rezultatima bilo je potresno otkrivenje da, ustvari, gubimo prirodni kapital -- povlastice koje teku od prirode do nas. Gubili smo ih iznimnom brzinom -- ustvari, u iznosu od 2 - 4 trilijuna dolara vrijednosti prirodnog kapitala. Ovo je izašlo 2008., što je bilo u vrijeme kada se bankarska kriza pojavila, kada smo izgubili financijski kapital u iznosu 2,5 bilijuna dolara. Dakle bilo je usporedivo u količini. Otada smo prezentirali međunarodnoj zajednici, vladama, lokalnim vladama i poslovima ljudima, meni i vama, cijelo mnoštvo izvještaja koji su prikazani UN-u prošle godine, koji govore o ekonomskoj nevidljivosti prirode i opisuje što se može napraviti po tome.
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.
O čemu se ovdje radi? Slika s kojom ste upoznati -- prašume Amazone. Masovno skladište ugljika, zadivljujuće mjesto bioraznolikosti, no ono što ljudi ne znaju je da je također i tvornica kiše. Jer sjeveroistočni vjetrovi, dok prelaze preko Amazone, efektivno skupljaju vodenu paru. Otprilike 20 milijardi tona na dan vodene pare koja je uvučena u sjeveroistočne vjetrove i na kraju se pojavi u obliku kiše kod La Plata Basina. Ciklus padanja kiše, ova tvornica kiše, hrani poljoprivrednu ekonomiju u iznosu od 240 milijardi dolara u Latinskoj Americi. Postavlja se pitanje: Koliko Urugvaj, Paragvaj, Argentina i područje Mato Grosso u Brazilu plaćaju za taj ključni doprinos ekonomiji području Amazona, koje proizvodi tu kišu? Odgovor je ništa, ravno nula. To je ekonomska nevidljivost prirode. To se ne može nastaviti, jer ti ekonomski poticaji su vrlo moćni. Ekonomija je postala valutom politike. I ukoliko ne obratimo pozornost na tu nevidljivost, dobiti ćemo rezultate koje vidimo, koji su postepeno degradiranje i gubitak vrijednih prirodnih resursa.
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.
Ne radi se samo o Amazoni ili o prašumama. Kako god da pogledate, bilo na razini ekosustava, vrste ili genetike, vidimo isti problem svaki put iznova. Ciklus kiše i regulacije vode u prašumama na razini ekosustava. Na razini vrste, je procjenjeno da je oprašivanje insekata, oprašivanje pčela i slično vrijedno otprilike 190 milijardi dolara. To je oko 8% potpunog globalnog poljoprivrednog prometa. Prolazi ispod radara u cijelosti. No kad vam je pčela ikada dala fakturu? Ili, ako gledate na genetskoj razini, 60% lijekova koji se prodaju, su prvo nađeni kao molekule u prašumi ili na grebenu. Još jednom, većina toga se ne plaća.
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.
To me dovodi do sljedećeg aspekta, koji je, kome bi se trebalo platiti? Taj genetski materijal je vjerojatno pripadao, ako je mogao pripadati bilo kome, lokalnoj zajednici siromašnih ljudi koji su odvojili znanje koje je pomoglo znanstvenicima da nađu molekulu koja je tada postala lijek. Oni su ti kojima nije plaćeno. Ako gledate na razini vrsta, recimo nešto o ribama. Danas je trošenje oceanskih izvora ribe toliko značajno da uspješno utječe na mogućnost siromašnih, zanatskih ribara, i onih koji ribare za svoj život, da nahrane svoje obitelji. Oko milijardu ljudi ovisi o ribi, količini ribe u oceanima. Milijardu ljudi ovisi o ribi kao glavnom izvoru životinjskih proteina. Brzina kojom gubimo ribu, postaje ljudski problem ogromnih dimenzija, zdravstveni problem kakav još nismo vidjeli. Konačno, razina ekosustava, bilo prevencija poplava ili suša pomoću šuma, bilo mogućnost siromašnih farmera da skupljaju lišće za svoju stoku i koze, ili mogućnost njihovih žena da skupljaju drvo za ogrijev iz šuma, ustvari su siromašni oni koji najviše ovise o uslugama ekosustava.
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.
Napravili smo izračune u našim istraživanjima za države poput Brazila, Indije i Indonezije, čak kroz usluge ekosustava -- te povlastice koje putuju od prirode do čovječanstva besplatno - nisu velikih postotaka u omjerima BDP-a -- 2, 4, 8, 10, 15% -- no u tim državama, ako mjerimo koliko je vrijedno siromašnima, odgovori više naginju prema 45, 75, 90%. To je razlika. Jer to su važne povlastice za siromašne. I ne možete imati prave modele za razvoj ako u isto vrijeme uništavate ili dopuštate degradaciju upravo tih resursa, najvažnijih resursa, koji su vaši resursi za razvoj, koji su ekološka infrastruktura.
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.
Koliko loše može biti? Ovdje je slika nečega što se zove obilje vrsta. U osnovi je mjera koliko tigrova, žaba, ili čega već u prosjeku biomase raznih vrsta postoji. Zeleno predstavlja postotak. Ako počinjete zeleno, radi se o 80 - 100%. Ako je žuto, radi se o 40 - 60%. Ovo su postoci u omjeru s originalnim stanjem, predindustrijska era, 1750.
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.
Sada ću vam pokazati kako bi posao obično utjecao na ovo. Gledajte promjene u bojama u Indiji, Kini, Europi, sub-Saharskoj Africi kako se krećemo i konzumiramo globalnu biomasu brzinom kojom nećemo moći sebe održati. Pogledajte ponovo. Jedino mjesto koje ostaje zeleno -- a to nije dobra vijest -- su ustvari mjesta poput pustinje Gobi, poput tundre i Sahare. To ne pomaže jer je tamo vrlo malo vrsta i količine biomase. Ovo je izazov. Razlog zašto se ovo događa se, u mojoj glavi, svodi na osnovni problem, je da nismo sposobni uvidjeti razliku između javnog dobra i privatnog profita. Konstantno ignoriramo javno bogatstvo samo zato što je zajedničko, zajedničko dobro.
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.
Ovo je primjer iz Tajlanda gdje smo pronašli da, jer cijena mangrova nije velika -- oko 600 dolara tijekom 9 godina koliko se mjerilo -- u usporedbi s vrijednošću farme kozica, koja je oko 9.600 dolara, postoji postupni trend iscrpljivanja mangrova i pretvaranja u farme kozica. Naravno, ako gledate koji su točno profiti, gotovo 8,000 dolara od toga su subvencije. Dakle uspoređujete dvije strane novčića i vidite da je profit više oko 1,200 do 600. Nije toliko teško.
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.
No s druge strane, ako počnete mjeriti, koliko bi zapravo koštalo da vratite tlo na kojem je farma kozica natrag u produktivne svrhe? Nakon što su sol i kemikalije imale svoj utjecaj, odgovor je oko 12.000 dolara, Ako vidite prednosti mangrova u razini obrane od oluja i ciklona koju dobijete u razini ribolova i uzgajanja ribe, koje daju ribu siromašnima, odgovor je oko 11.000 dolara. Sada pogledajte kroz drugačije leće. Ako gledate kroz leće javnog bogatstva u suprotnosti s lećama privatnog profita, dobijete potpuno nov odgovor, da čuvanje mangrova ima više smisla od uništavanja.
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.
Dakle, ovo je samo priča s južnog Tajlanda? Oprostite, ovo je globalna priča. Ovako izgleda ista računica, koja je izvedena nedavno -- kažem nedavno, mislim kroz 10 godina -- od grupe zvane TRUCOST. Izračunali su za prvih 3.000 poduzeća koje su eksternalije? Odnosno, koliki je trošak uobičajenog poslovanja? Ovo nisu ilegalne stvari, ovo je u osnovi samo posao, koji uzrokuje klimatske promjene, koje imaju ekonomsku cijenu. Uzrokuje stvaranje zagađivača, koji imaju ekonomsku cijenu, zdravstvenu cijenu, i tako dalje. Korištenje svježe vode. Ako bušite za vodu kako bi napravili kolu u blizini seoske farme, To nije ilegalno, ali košta zajednicu.
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.
Možemo li to zaustaviti i kako? Prvi cilj je prepoznati prirodni kapital. U osnovi stvari koje život znače su prirodni kapital, i moramo to prepoznati i ugraditi u sustave. Kada mjerimo BDP kao mjeru ekonomske izvedbe na nacionalnoj razini, ne uključujemo najveće resurse na razini države. Kada mjerimo učinak poduzeća, ne uključujemo naš utjecaj na prirodu i koliko naš posao košta zajednicu. To mora stati. Ustvari, to je upravo što je inspiriralo moj interes u ovoj fazi. Davno sam počeo projekt koji se zvao Projekt zelenog računovodstva. To je bilo u ranim 2000.-ima kada je Indija išla na rast BDP-a kao sredstvo za napredak -- gledajući Kinu i njen rast od 8, 9, 10% i razmišljajući zašto mi ne možemo isto? Nekoliko mojih prijatelja i ja smo odlučili da to nema smisla. Ovo će stvoriti više troškova za društvo i više gubitaka. Odlučili smo napraviti ogroman set izračuna i počeli proizvoditi zelene račune za Indiju i njene pokrajine. Tako je počeo moj interes i krenuo prema projektu TEEB. Računanje na nacionalnoj razini je jedna stvar i počelo je. Svjetska banka je prepoznala ovo i počeli su projekt pod nazivom WAVES -- Računovodstvo bogatstva i procjena usluga ekosustava.
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.
No računanje na sljedećoj razini, znači na razini poslovnog sektora, je važno. Zapravo smo ovo i napravili s TEEB-om Učinili smo ovo za težak slučaj, koji je bio deforestacija u Kini. Ovo je važno jer je u Kini 1997., Žuta rijeka presušila na 9 mjeseci uzrokujući velike gubitke poljoprivredi, bol i gubitak društvu. Godinu dana kasnije, Yangtze je poplavila, uzrokujući oko 5.500 poginulih. Očito je postojao problem sa deforestacijom. Povezan uvelike s građevinskom industrijom.
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.
Kineska vlada je odgovorila razumno i stavila zabranu na sječu. Pregled kroz 40 godina pokazuje da smo odgovarali za te troškove -- troškove gubitka tla, troškove gubitka vodenih puteva, gubitak produktivnosti, gubitak lokalne zajednice kao rezultat svih tih faktora, pustošenje i slično -- koštaju gotovo dvostruko više nego tržišna cijena drva. Ustvari, cijena drva na tržištu u Pekingu bi bila tri puta veća nego što je, da je odražavala pravu cijenu i bol društva u Kini. Naravno, nakon događaja, može se biti mudar.
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.
Način na koji poduzeća mogu pomoći, jest da vodstvo razmišlja unaprijed i isto učiniti za toliko važnih sektora koji imaju cijenu i otkrivati odgovore. Netko me jednom pitao: "Tko je bolji ili lošiji, Unilever ili P&G kada je u pitanju utjecaj na prašume u Indoneziji?" Nisam mogao odgovoriti jer nijedna od njih iako su profesionalne, ne računaju, ne otkrivaju svoje eksternalije.
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."
No ako pogledamo tvrtke poput PUME -- Jochen Zeitz, njihov direktor, me jednom izazvao na djelovanje, govoreći da će implementirati moj projekt prije nego ga završim. Mislim da smo završili u isto vrijeme, no napravio je to. U osnovi je računao Pumine troškove. Puma ima 2,7 milijardi dolara prometa, 300 milijuna dolara profita, 200 milijuna dolara nakon poreza, 94 milijuna dolara eksternalija, troškova poslu. To nije dobra situacija za njih, no imaju hrabrost i samouvjerenost da izađu i kažu: "Ovo je ono što mi mjerimo. Mjerimo to jer znamo da ne možeš upravljati onime što ne mjeriš."
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.
To je, rekao bih, primjer za nas da gledamo i da vučemo pouku iz njega. Kada bi više poduzeća radilo to, i kada bi više sektora pridoneslo ovome kao sektori, mogli bi imati poslovne analitičare, i ljude poput nas i potrošače i nevladine udruge da zapravo pogledaju i usporede društvenu izvedbu poduzeća. Danas to još ne možemo, no mislim da je put popločen. Ovo se može učiniti. Drago mi je da je institut ovlaštenih računovođa u UK već složio koaliciju, međunarodnu koaliciju.
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.
Drugi favorit, rješenje za mene je stvaranje tržišta zelenog ugljika. Usput, ovo su mi favoriti -- računanje eksternalija i tržište zelenog ugljika. TEEB ima desetak drugačijih grupa rješenja uključujući procjenu zaštićenog područja i plaćanje za usluge ekosustava, eko-certifikacija i slično, ali ovo su mi favoriti. Što je zeleni ugljik? Danas imamo tržište smeđeg ugljika. Radi se o emisiji energije. Trgovački sustav EU je glavno tržište. Ne funkcionira. Prevelika je ponuda. Nešto kao inflacija: ponudite previše valute, dobijete što vidite, smanjenje cijena. No to je sve o energiji i industriji.
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.
Propuštamo druge emisije kao crni ugljik, koji je čađa. Propuštamo i plavi ugljik, koji je, usput, najzastupljeniji ugljik -- više od 55%. Na sreću, tok emisija iz oceana do atmosfere i obrnuto, je više manje balansiran. Ono što se upija je oko 25% naših emisija, koje vode do kiselosti ili niske lužnatosti u oceanima. Više o tome za minutu.
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.
I na kraju, postoji deforestacija, i emisija metana iz poljoprivrede. Zeleni ugljik, koji je deforestacija i emisije poljoprivrede, i plavi ugljik zajedno čine 25% naših emisija. Imamo već sredstva u našim rukama, kroz strukturu, mehanizam zvan REDD Plus - shema za reduciranje emisija iz deforestacija i degradacija šuma. Norveška je već doprinijela s milijardu dolara u Indoneziji i Brazilu da primjene shemu Red Plus. Dakle imamo kretanje prema naprijed. Stvar je da nam treba puno više toga.
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.
Hoće li ovo riješiti problem? Hoće li ekonomija riješiti sve? Bojim se da ne. Postoji područje u oceanima, koraljni grebeni. Kao što možete vidjeti, ima ih po cijelom planetu od Mikronezije preko Indonezije, Malazije, Indije, Madagaskara do zapadnih Kariba. Ove crvene točke, crvena područja, u osnovi daju hranu i život više od pola milijarde ljudi. To je gotovo osmina društva. Tužna vijest je, kako su ti grebeni izgubljeni -- a znanstvenici nam govore da bilo koja količina ugljičnog dioksida u atmosferi iznad 350 dijelova u milijun je preopasna za opstanak ovih grebena -- ne riskiramo samo smrt cijele vrste koralja, koralja toplih voda, ne riskiramo samo četvrtinu svih riba u oceanu, već riskiramo živote i dobrobit više od 500 milijuna ljudi koji žive u tim državama u razvoju.
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.
Izborom cilja od 450 dijelova u milijun i dva stupnja na klimatskim raspravama, ono što smo učinili je da smo napravili etičan izbor. Napravili smo etičan izbor u društvu da nemamo koraljne grebene. Ono što ću vam reći u odlasku je da smo mogli to napraviti. Razmislimo o onome što to znači no molim vas, ne više od toga. Jer majka priroda ima samo određenu ekološku infrastrukturu i prirodnog kapitala. Mislim da ne možemo izabrati toliko etičan izbor.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)