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.
我喺呢度同大家討論 大自然嘅無形性經濟 但壞消息係 大自然嘅後勤部門其實未運作 所以仲未出發票 但我哋需要處理呢個問題 我一出嚟就從事市場專業 一直都冇改 不過最近我大部分精力都投放到 研究人類開採返嚟嘅自然資源嘅價值 但佢哋仍然未有所謂嘅價錢牌
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.
一個名為 TEEB 嘅計劃喺 2007 年開始 由一班 G8+5 嘅環保官員成立 佢哋嘅理念 源自斯特恩勳爵嘅苛刻見解 佢哋問咗自己一個問題: 如果經濟可以說服到人 及早對抗氣候變化 咁點解唔可以說服人類做保育? 點解同一道理唔可以套用到大自然呢? 而答案係:無錯,可以 但並唔係咁直接 生物多樣性係地球上活生生嘅結構 而並非死沉沉嘅氣體 佢存在嘅層面有 生態系統、物種同基因 規模又以國際、國內、本地、社區計 斯特恩勳爵同佢嘅團隊 為自然界付出嘅努力殊不簡單
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.
而我哋開始咗第一步 個計劃由一份中期報告開始 喺短時間之內綜合咗 大量由研究員搜集返嚟 關於呢個課題嘅資料 而喺我哋編輯嘅結果之中 有一個驚人嘅發現 就係其實我哋損失緊自然資源 即係從大自然畀我哋嘅恩賜縮細緊 原來我哋以驚人嘅速度消耗嘅自然資源 價值高達 2 至 4 萬億美元 報告喺 2008 年發表 亦即係金融海嘯嘅時候 當時市場已經虧損達 2.5 萬億美元 自然資源損耗嘅規模亦達到同一規模 於是我哋開始 為國際社會 為各個政府 為本地政府同商界 為全球人類,為你同我 喺去年喺聯合國 針對大自然嘅無形性經濟同解決方法 發表咗呢堆報告
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.
究竟係咩呢? 一幅大家好熟悉嘅圖片 亞馬遜雨林 佢係一個巨大嘅碳庫存 一個擁有生物多樣性嘅庫存 但好多人都唔知 佢亦係一個雨水工廠 因為當東北信風橫過亞馬遜嘅時候 會有效咁收集水氣 每日大約二百億噸水氣被東北信風吸走 慢慢冷卻成雨水 落到拉普拉塔河盆 呢個降雨循環、呢個雨水工廠 有效咁孕育著 一個價值達 2,400 千億美元 位處拉丁美洲嘅農業經濟 但有一個問題 究竟烏拉圭、巴拉圭、阿根廷 仲有巴西嘅馬托格羅索州 為呢個咁重要嘅經濟來源 或者為亞馬遜生產雨水畀咗幾多錢呢? 答案係冇 係零 呢個就係大自然嘅無形性經濟 呢個情況唔可以持續落去 因為經濟誘因同經濟不利因素好強大 經濟已經成為政策嘅籌碼 除非我哋正視呢個無形性經濟 否則我哋會面對一如所料嘅後果 目送珍貴嘅天然財產逐漸惡化同消失 呢個唔單止關係到亞馬遜同雨林
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.
無論邊個層面 無論係生態系統、物種定係基因層面 呢個問題都係存在 雨林嘅雨水循環同水調節 係屬於生態系統層 喺物種層 有人估計過昆蟲傳播花粉 蜜蜂為果實授粉等等 價值約為 1,900 億美元 呢個差不多相當於 全球總農產量百分之 8 但我哋完全忽略咗呢點 但蜜蜂幾時有開過張發票畀我哋? 或者,從基因層面睇嘅話 六成藥物都係從雨林或暗礁中提煉出嚟 同樣人類唔洗一分一毫就得到
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.
呢樣帶我去問題嘅另一面 就係應該邊個收錢? 呢啲基因物質如果屬於任何人嘅話 大概屬於貧窮社區嘅人 佢哋嘅知識幫研究員搵到化學分子 令化學分子最終成為藥物 但現實佢哋一無所得 如果你睇下物種層次 你見到魚類 今日,海洋漁產嘅損耗非常顯著 迅速危及窮人、漁民嘅生計 全球大約 10 億人依賴海裏邊嘅魚為生 10 億人依賴魚類 作為動物蛋白質嘅主要來源 目前魚類損耗速度係一個巨大嘅人禍 會造成一個前所未有嘅健康問題 最後,喺生態系統層面 無論講緊樹林嘅防洪或者防旱功能 以至貧困嘅農民外出收集枯枝落葉 供家畜家畜用 或者佢哋嘅妻子去樹林執柴 到最後窮人係最依賴生態系統嘅一班人 我哋研究估計
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.
喺巴西、印度、印尼等國家 縱使生態系統服務 呢類從大自然免費流到人類嘅資源 或者佔國內生產總值百分比唔多 由百分之 2 到 15 不等 但係如果呢啲國家計埋大自然資源 對貧窮人口嘅價值 得出嘅數字係佔國內生產總值 百分之 45、75 甚至 90 差異就係呢度 因為佢哋對貧窮嘅人嚟講好重要 如果你破壞呢個珍貴資源 亦即係生態系統 或者任由佢惡化 你就唔可以指望有正常嘅發展模式 情況將會有幾壞?
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.
呢度有張叫做平均物種豐度度嘅圖片 基本上量度老虎、蟾蜍、壁蝨 諸如此類嘅數量 又或者計唔同物種嘅生物質 綠色部分代表百分比 先睇綠色嘅話 呢度大概有百分之 80 至 100 再睇黃色,就有百分之 40 至 60 呢個係對比原有數量嘅百分比 即係工業化前,1750年
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.
而家我會畀大家睇 目前情況不變會造成咩後果 只需要留意印度、中國、歐洲 同非洲撒哈拉以南嘅顏色改變 我哋以不可持續嘅速度消耗全球生物質 再睇 僅存綠色嘅地方,好遺憾 只係類似戈壁沙漠嘅地方 譬如苔原同撒哈拉 不過無用,因為呢啲地方物種好少 生物量又唔多 呢個就係挑戰所在 之所以有轉變,歸根究底 我認為係一個基本問題 我哋忽視咗公共利益同私人利益嘅差別 我哋一向漠視公共財富 純粹因為大家覺得係公共嘅 所以就冇理 泰國有一個例子
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.
由於嗰度紅樹林價值唔高 以佢哋九年生命大概值 600 美元 相比作為養蝦場嘅價值 約莫係 9,600 美元 啲人就將紅樹林改為養蝦場 紅樹林就係咁逐漸絕跡 如果仔細睇下得出嚟 嗰 9,000 美元嘅獲利 當中接近 8,000 美元其實都係補貼 所以權衡利弊嘅時候 就會發現實際利潤分別係 1,200 美元同 600 美元 咁樣唔難明白
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.
另外 如果計算將養蝦場嘅土地恢復生產用途 代價將會係幾多? 一旦土地裏邊嘅鹽同化學起咗作用 恢復成本大概係 12,000 美元 但保留紅樹林嘅好處 包括抵禦風暴、颱風同為窮人提供漁獲 價值有成 11,000 美元 試下從另一角度去睇 如果從公共財富出發 而非私人利益 我哋會得到一個好唔同嘅答案︰ 就係好明顯,保育比破壞更加合理
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.
但呢個係咪只係泰國南部嘅情況? 唔係,呢個係全世界嘅狀況 以同一條數計…… 過去十年有一個組織 TRUCOST 以同一條數計 佢哋為最頂尖 3,000 家公司 計經濟外部性 換句話說 如果照正常營商,成本係幾多? 呢度唔係指非法勾當 而係講一般營商會排放氣體、改變氣候 因此一般營商會附帶著經濟成本 一般營商會放出污染物 所以附帶著經濟成本、健康成本等等 至於淡水利用 如果你喺鄉村耕地旁邊 鑽鑿水源去煉焦炭 雖然無違法,但的確賠上社區
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.
我哋可以阻止嗎?點樣阻止? 我認為第一件事係需要認識自然資源 簡單講生物就係自然資源 我哋需要認識自然資源 同埋將佢擺入我哋嘅模式入面 當量度國民生產總值 呢個作為國家經濟表現嘅指標時 我哋並無包括最珍貴嘅自然界資源 當我哋睇公司業績 我哋亦無包括公司對大自然嘅影響 以及營商帶嚟嘅社會代價 咁嘅計算方法一定要停用 呢個亦係我目前最有興趣嘅嘢 之前我搞咗一個綠色審計計劃 大約喺 2000 年代初 當時印度一心想 令國內生產總值呯呯聲咁上 藉此推動發展 同時眼看著中國 有百分之 8 至 10 嘅增長 佢哋問,點解我哋做唔到? 我同幾個朋友都覺得成件事唔合理 認為追上國內生產總值 只會為社會帶嚟更多代價同損失 於是我哋決定做大規模審計 為印度同佢各個邦做綠色審計 我嘅興趣就係咁樣開始 後來演變成 TEEB 計劃 終於,可以喺國家層面 審計呢種綠色帳單! 而世界銀行亦確認咗呢個計畫 開展名為 WAVES 嘅計劃 全名叫生態系統價值審計及估值計劃
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.
但審計生態層對上嘅商界層面都重要嘅 事實上我哋亦都喺 TEEB 計劃裏邊做過 我哋做咗一個好棘手嘅個案︰ 中國嘅伐林問題 呢個問題係重要嘅 因為中國喺 1997 年 黃河足足乾涸咗九個月 造成農業嚴重損失 對社會帶嚟損失同禍害 一年後長江泛濫 造成差唔多 5,500 人死亡 好明顯,伐林就係問題根源 伐林好大程度上同建造業有關
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.
之後中國政府明智作出回應 禁止咗砍伐林木 回顧 40 年 如果當初我哋有計埋呢啲大自然成本 包括表土流失、水道乾涸 同生產力損失 因為上述原因以及伐木等等 對本地社區造成嘅損失 呢啲成本幾乎係 木材市價嘅兩倍 北京市場上嘅木材價格 理應因此上漲到三倍 以反映中國社會付出嘅天然代價 當然,經一事長一智
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.
應對嘅辦法就係喺公司嘅層面做 並且由公司帶頭做起 盡可能為包含自然成本嘅界別審計 同埋披露當中嘅自然成本 有人曾經問我 若果考慮對印尼雨林嘅影響 聯合利華定係寶潔比較傷害低? 我唔識答,因為呢兩家公司雖然好專業 但都無計算或披露過經濟外部性
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."
如果我哋睇下彪馬等嘅公司 佢哋嘅行政總裁兼董事長 Jochen Zeitz 曾經喺一個活動同我講 佢會比我更加早落實個計劃 我哋大概同期落實咗個計劃 而佢真係有做 佢基本上為彪馬計算自然成本 彪馬有 27 億美元營業額 有 3 億美元利潤 除稅後有 2 億美元 同埋有 9,400 萬美元 經濟外部性同營商成本 情况雖然不利 但佢哋有信心同勇氣講︰ 「我哋計緊呢樣嘢呀, 因為我哋深知, 唔去計永遠都管理唔到。」
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.
呢個例子,可以作為大家示範 亦令我哋感到安慰 如果更多公司都願意做 如果更多界別參與 分析員、企業分析員 好似我哋咁嘅人、消費者 或者非牟利組織 去審視同比較企業嘅社會表現 雖然未成事,但已經有例可循 係可以做到嘅! 我好慶幸英國特許會計師公會 已經成立一個國際聯盟進行計算工作
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.
另一個我喜歡嘅方法 就係創造綠色碳市場 講開又講,我真係好鐘意 經濟外部性嘅計數同綠色碳市場 TEEB 有超過 12 組不同方案 包括評估保護區、為生態系統服務結算 同埋生態驗證 而上述呢三樣係我最鐘意嘅 咁咩係綠色碳? 而家我哋有嘅係啡色碳市場 呢個市場不斷排放二氧化碳 歐盟排放交易體系就係其中主要市場 由於發行過度,呢個體系表現唔理想 有啲似通脹:你大量發鈔 然後一如所料,價格下降
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.
呢啲全都同能源、工業有關 但我哋忽略咗其他排放 例如黑色碳,即係煤煙 我哋亦忽略咗藍色碳 即係最大嘅碳庫存 佔總碳庫存超過百分之 55 所謂藍色碳 係指海洋同大氣層之間嘅流動 好欣慰,藍色碳差不多係收支平衡 事實上,海洋吸收嘅 大約係我哋排放嘅四分一 吸收會導致海洋酸化 或者鹼度下降 我哋稍後再講
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.
最後,綠色碳指砍伐樹林 仲有係來自農業嘅甲烷排放 綠色碳加埋藍色碳 合共佔我哋排放嘅四分一 我哋其實已經有方法 就係透過一個 REDD Plus 嘅結構 或者機制 減少因伐林同林地惡化而造成碳排放 挪威為咗推行 Red Plus 計劃 已分別投放 10 億元落印尼同巴西 進展係有 但仍然要花好多工夫
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.
咁問題解決到嗎?經濟可以解決到嗎? 未必 因為仲有海洋、珊瑚礁 你哋睇睇 佢哋遍佈全球 由密克羅西尼亞 一直到印尼、馬來西亞 印度、馬達加斯加 到加勒比海西面 呢啲紅點、紅色區域 基本上為過五億人口提供糧食同生計 即係大概佔全球八分一人口 不幸嘅係,珊瑚礁消失緊 而科學家指出 大氣中嘅二氧化碳 只要超過百萬分之 350 珊瑚礁就會有生存危險 我哋唔單止危害到 整個珊瑚物種、溫水珊瑚 同埋海洋四分一魚類 仲危及超過五億人嘅生命同生計 呢五億人身處發展中嘅貧窮國家
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.
因此喺氣候和談裏邊 限制二氧化碳喺百萬分之 450 同埋限制氣温上升兩度 都似乎係合乎道德嘅 而我哋社會亦似乎經過道德思考 選擇放棄珊瑚礁 但我想喺完結前講 放棄珊瑚礁呢件事我哋或者已經做咗 但大家諗下後果 所以請大家唔好繼續咁做 因為我哋擁有嘅生態建設 同自然資本就得咁多 我哋唔可再負擔合乎道德嘅錯
Thank you.
多謝各位
(Applause)
(掌聲)