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.
我今天来谈谈 自然界那些潜在的经济成本消耗。 坏消息在于, 大自然尚未启动后台结算, 因此我们对这些经济成本消耗一无所知。 但我们需要对这个问题采取行动。 我的工作是研究消费市场, 现在仍对这个领域充满兴趣, 而我最近大部分时间 都致力于研究那些 由大自然带给人类 且其价值未被纳入市场范畴的资源。
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.
2007年,G8+5国家(G8的八个国家+5个新兴经济体国家)的环境部长们 发起了一个名为TEEB(The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity生态系统与生物多样性经济学) 的项目。 激发他们发起这个项目的灵感 来源于Stern爵士(Nicholas Stern)一篇严肃的评论文章 他们提出了这样一个问题: 如果从经济学角度考虑问题 能够说服人们在气候变化的初期采取相应措施, 那么在谈论气候问题时引进经济学作为考虑因素能不能达到同样效果呢? 同样的思维方式能否被运用到 思考人与自然的关系上? 答案是肯定的。 然而,这一答案并非显而易见就能得到。 作为这个星球的生命构造,生物多样性并不是凭空存在的。 它存在于多个层面中: 各个规模的生态系统,物种,基因--- 无论是国际间的,民族间的,本地的,还是社区内的--- 而且像Stern爵士和他的团队那样去研究大自然 绝非易事。
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.
尽管有种种困难,我们还是开始着手于这个项目。 我们从一篇中期报告着手, 里面汇集了 许多研究者搜集的 关于生态系统与生物多样性经济话题的信息。 我们从汇集的资料中 发现了这么一个让人惊讶的事实-- 自然资产正在逐渐流失 --而这资产正是大自然馈赠给我们的。 它以极快的速度流失-- 事实上,这是一笔价值两到四万亿美金的 自然资产。 这个现象发生在2008年, 大约在同一时期,银行业的危机显示 我们正在损失一笔价值 2.5万亿美金的金融资产。 因此,自然资产的流失大致和08年银行业危机造成的损失量处于同一级别。 从那时起, 我们开始为国际性团体、 为政府、 为地方政府和商业机构、 以及为和你我一样的普通民众 准备了一篇详尽的报告,并在去年的联合国会议上做了陈述, 报告中提出了自然界潜在的经济因素, 并陈述了一些解决方法。
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.
什么是“自然界潜在的经济因素”呢? 举个大家都熟悉的例子-- 亚马孙雨林。 它是巨大的碳储藏室,是让人叹为观止的生物多样性储藏室, 但人们并不真正明白 它也是一个降雨工厂。 因为东北信风 在越过亚马孙雨林时, 高效地聚集并带走了水蒸汽。 每天大约有200亿吨水蒸汽 由东北信风吸收并带走, 最终在拉普拉塔河盆地上 形成降雨。 这个雨水循环,这个降雨工厂, 高效地滋养了拉丁美洲的农业经济, 而这一降水过程的经济价值 高达2千4百亿美元。 问题来了:既然如此,那么 乌拉圭、巴拉圭、阿根廷 以及巴西的马托格罗索州 为这些对它们经济产生至关重要影响的降水 向生产降水的亚马孙地区诸州支付多少费用呢? 答案是:零, 一分钱也没付。 这就是“自然界潜在的经济因素”。 我们不能让这种现象持续下去, 因为经济方面的正向以及反向激励有着显著效果。 经济学已经成为政策的筹码。 除非我们提出 潜在的经济成本这一议题, 否则我们将得到我们现在所看到的后果-- 宝贵自然资产的 逐渐退化和消失。
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.
这不仅仅关于亚马孙地区,还关乎雨林本身。 无论你从哪个层面看, 从生态系统层面也好、从物种层面、抑或从基因层面看也罢, 同样的问题一再显现。 因此,降水循环和雨林中的水份保持 是位于整个生态系统层面的问题。 从物种层面来说, 昆虫的授粉过程, 例如蜜蜂给水果授粉等, 据估计大约含有1.9千亿美元的经济价值。 这相当于全球农业总产量 的8%左右。 这一过程完全未被有意识地侦测到。 蜜蜂什么时候为这一过程向你要过钱呢? 还有,如果从基因层面来看, 60%的药物都是最早在雨林或是暗礁处 作为分子而被勘查、发现的。 同样地,人类没有为这些自然资源付过一分钱。
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.
因此我开始从另一角度看这个话题: 我们该向谁付这笔钱? 这些基因方面的材料 也许应该属于(如果它们能够属于某些人的话) 当地社区的穷人-- 他们用自己的知识帮助研究人员找到这些 最终成为药物的分子。 他们从未为此得到过报酬。 如果从物种层面看, 鱼类是个很好的例子。 如今,对于海洋渔场的消耗已经大到 对于那些穷人、 深谙捕鱼技艺并把它作为一门手艺的人、 以及那些为了养活家人而捕鱼的人 产生了严重影响。 大约十亿人口的生活依赖于鱼类, 依赖于海洋中鱼的数量。 十亿人把鱼作为他们 摄入动物蛋白的主要来源。 鱼类的数量如此迅速的减少, 构成了一个多维度的问题, 一个我们从未遇见过的 健康问题。 最后,从生态系统层面看, 无论是从森林提供的防洪抗旱功能来说, 从并不富裕的农民们 到森林中为他们的牛羊 搜集枯树叶作为饲料来说, 还是从农妇们外出到森林中 搜集用于烤火的木头来说, 穷人们实际上更加依赖于 生态系统所提供的资源。
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.
我们在研究中做了如下估计: 对于像巴西、印度、印尼这样的国家, 即使生态系统提供了充足资源-- 这些是人类可免费从大自然获取的-- 从国内生产总值(GDP)来看,也没占多大比例-- 大约2%,4%,8%,10%,15%左右-- 但在这些国家中,如果我们来看自然资源对于穷人来说占生产总值的比例, 那么,这个答案更加可能是 45%,75%,90%。 这就是差距所在。 因为对于穷人来说,自然资源是一项很重要的福利。 想要建立一个恰当的发展模式, 如果与此同时破坏或者 任由最重要的发展资本-- 生态基础设施--退化, 那么实现发展只是空谈。
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.
这种情况能变得多糟糕呢? 这里有幅被称为“平均物种充足性”的图。 它用来衡量周围环境中 单位面积内平均来说 有多少老虎、蟾蜍、壁虱或是其他不同物种。 绿色代表的是百分比。 如果你开始的时候处于绿色区域,那么生物覆盖率大约为80%到100%。 如果黄色,那么是40%到60%。 这些百分比是相对于最初状态来说的, 即工业革命前期,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.
现在,我将向你们展示 寻常的商业化进程如何影响平均物种充足性。 看看图上的颜色 在印度、中国、欧洲、 以及撒哈拉沙漠以南的非洲的变化, 如果全球单位面积内生物数量继续以现在的速率减少, 那么地球将无法维持人类的生存。 回到这张图。 坏消息是,唯一仍呈绿色的地区 事实上是戈壁区、 苔原冻土地带、撒哈拉沙漠之类的地方。 这些无济于事,因为生活在这些地方的物种本来就极少, 单位面积生物数量很小。 这就是挑战所在。 在我看来, 这种现象发生的原因可以归结为一个最基本的问题, 就是我们未能理解 公共利益 和个人利益之间的差别。 我们往往倾向于无视公共财富, 仅仅因为它是共同财富的一部分, 是一项共同商品。
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.
举一个发生在泰国的例子, 我们发现,由于红树林的价值并不算高-- 据估计在它们9年的生命期内大约价值600美元-- 相对于养虾场来说 它的价值大约9600美元。 红树林正渐渐被砍伐 改建成养虾场。 当然,如果仔细看看这些利润究竟来自哪里, 你会看到其中大约8000美元 实际上来自政府补贴。 因此,这两种选择之间的经济价值差异 大约在1200到600美元之间。 这看起来并不算糟。
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.
但从另一方面去衡量, 我们究竟要花多少钱 才能让被养虾场占用的土地 恢复其生产作用? 一旦土地被盐碱化或是形成化学淀积, 恢复其生产作用的成本 很可能高达1.2万美元。 如果考虑红树林 在暴雨、暴风发生时对土地提供的保护, 以及向穷人提供赖以生存的鱼群的 养鱼场、鱼苗圃, 那么其潜在价值很可能达到1.1万美元。 现在,我们换个角度看问题。 如果从公共财富 而不是个人利益的角度看, 会得到完全不同的结论-- 我们应该保护红树林, 而不是毁坏它。
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.
这种情况仅仅发生在泰国南部吗? 遗憾的是,全球都存在这个现象。 这里展示的最近是用类似计算方法得到的结果-- “最近”是指过去十年-- 由一个叫TRUCOST的组织(专注于向公司提供其运营过程中可能对环境产生影响的数据)提供。 他们对排名前3000的公司进行了计算 --公司运营的外部效应是什么? 换句话说,公司运营的实际成本是多少? 公司日常运营范畴之内的某些举动虽然并不违法, 但那些影响气候变化的排放物需被纳入经济成本。 公司运营过程中产生了污染物,这些需被纳入经济成本、 健康成本等的考虑范围。 拿淡水的应用来举例。 如果你在一个农庄附近取水用来生产可乐, 这的确并不违法,但会对当地社区产生影响。
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.
我们能否阻止这一行为?如何去阻止? 我认为首先要明确的一点是,需要认识到自然资产的存在。 自然资产是指那些有生命的东西, 我们需要承认它们的存在,并将其纳入经济体系中。 我们在衡量作为全国经济表现指标的 国内生产总值时, 并未包含这个从国家层面来说最大的资产。 我们衡量公司表现时, 也未包括对于自然的影响 以及对于社会的影响。 这种衡量方法必须被淘汰。 事实上,这一观点激发了我此阶段的兴趣所在。 我很久之前发起了一个名为“绿色会计”的项目。 21世纪初期, 随着一系列进程的推进, 印度试图努力提高GDP增长-- 看着中国每年8%,9%,10%的GDP稳步增速, 想着“我们怎样也能实现这么迅速地增长呢?” 我和我的一些朋友们认为 这一增长速度不合乎情理。 这将会为社会发展增加更多成本、带来更大损失。 因此我们决定进行大量关于自然资产的计算, 并开始为印度及其各州维护绿色账户。 我的兴趣由此引发, 随之开展了TEEB(生态系统与生物多样性经济学)项目。 其中一项任务就是开展国家层面关于自然经济成本的计算。 世界银行认识到这个的重要性, 并开展了一个称为WAVES的项目, 即“财富会计与生态系统评估”。
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.
在下一个层面, 即在各商业部门进行此项计算,至关重要。 我们通过TEEB项目实现了这点。 我们把这种计算应用到一个相当复杂的案例上-- 中国的森林退减。 这个案例举足轻重,因为在1997年, 中国的黄河曾一度干涸九个月之久, 导致农业产出严重减少, 也给社会带来了损失。 仅仅一年之后,长江爆发洪涝, 导致约5500人死亡。 显然,森林减退带来了一定问题。 这和建筑行业(对木材的需求)紧密相关。
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.
中国政府作出了理智回应, 颁布条令禁止乱砍滥伐。 回顾过去40年, 我们可以看到,如果算上所有成本代价-- 包括表层土壤的流失、 河道的干涸, 以及由所有这些因素造成的 生产力减退、对当地社区的损害、 荒漠化等等问题-- 这些代价几乎是砍伐森林所得木材 市场价格的两倍。 因此,北京市面上木材的价格 如果反映其对中国社会造成的 实际影响及其实际成本, 应该是目前价格的三倍。 当然,我们可以从这个项目中汲取经验。
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.
方法是在公司层面开展关于潜在经济成本的计算, 把它作为领导决策的一部分, 尽可能多地囊括产生此类成本的部门, 并公布计算结果。 有人曾问我:“论对于印尼雨林的影响而言, 联合利华和宝洁两家公司 谁造成的正面或者负面影响更大?” 我无法做出回答,因为这两家公司 尽管它们都很优秀、都很专业 但都未计算或者公布它们对于环境的外部影响。
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."
我们来看看类似于彪马PUMA之类的公司-- 他们的CEO兼主席Jochen Zeitz, 曾向我发起过关于计算公司潜在经济成本的挑战, 并说他会在我完成项目之前,提前实现它。 我想我们大约同时完成,但关键在于他确实实施了这个项目。 基本上完成了彪马在运营过程中潜在经济成本的计算。 彪马的营业额为27亿美元, 拥有3亿美元利润, 税后利润为2亿美元, 9400万为外部效应,这是公司运营成本的一部分。 对于他们来说,这并不是一个可喜的处境, 但他们有信心、有勇气 面对这一情形并说:“我们就是这么衡量公司效益的。 我们衡量这些潜在成本是因为我们知道 人们无法掌控自己不去衡量的事物。”
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.
我想,这可以作为一个用来参照 并从中得到慰藉的例子。 如果更多的公司参与到这个项目中, 如果更多部门把它纳入考虑范围, 你就可以请分析师、商业分析师 以及像我们一样的职业人员、消费者、NGO共同参与, 来研究与比较各公司的社会表现。 目前我们还无法实践这一目标,但我认为如何去实施的道路已经被指明了。 这个想法是可以实现的。 很高兴,英国的特许会计师协会 已经成立了一个致力于此的联盟 -- 一个国际性联盟。
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.
另外一个我最喜欢的解决方案,不知道你们是否喜欢, 是绿碳市场的成立。 顺便提一句,这是我最喜欢的两个创意-- 计算对于环境的外部影响,以及绿碳市场。 TEEB有许多独立的解决方案 --包括对受保护地区的评估、 为生态系统提供的服务付费、 以及生态证书等你能想到的方案,但以上提到的两个最受欢迎。 何谓“绿碳排放”? 现今我们拥有的基本是一个“褐碳市场”。 这个概念和能源排放有关。 欧盟排放贸易体系( European Union Emissions Trading Scheme)是主要市场。 这一体系运行得并不好,排放量已超额。 有点像通货膨胀:如果超额发行货币, 后果就是价格下跌。 但这里提到的情形关乎能源与工业。
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.
同样超标的还有其他排放物, 比如说“黑碳排放”,也就是煤烟排放。 “蓝碳排放”也已超标, 顺便说,它的碳含量最大-- 超过碳排放总量的55%。 好在这些排放物 从海洋流向空气再回流海洋的过程 或多或少还算平衡。 事实上,我们的排放物中 有大约25%在这一过程中被吸收, 随而导致海水的酸化 或是海水碱性的降低。 再补充一句。
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.
此外,还有森林的减退、 以及农业活动中 释放出的甲烷。 “绿碳排放” --即森林减退和农业排放-- 与“蓝碳排放” 加起来占了总碳排放量的25%。 我们手头已经有了解决方法, 即通过“REDD Plus(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation由森林砍伐和森林退化引起的减少排放)”这个体系及其机制-- 来制定针对减少排放的计划, 用以解决由乱砍滥伐和森林退化引起的问题。 挪威已经向印尼和巴西 各注资十亿美元 用来实施“REDD Plus”计划。 我们确实在向好的方面进展。 但需要做的远比这些多。
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.
这个方法能否解决所关心的问题?经济学能否用来解决所有难题? 恐怕不行。 这个问题有一部分涉及到海洋以及珊瑚礁。 可以看到, 它们分割了整个地球, 从密克罗尼西亚岛群开始, 横穿印尼、马来西亚、印度、马达加斯加, 直达加勒比海西侧。 这些红点、这些红色区域, 为5亿多人口 提供了食物和生存手段。 这比例几乎占了整个社会的八分之一。 坏消息在于,这些珊瑚礁正渐渐消失-- 据科学家说, 若大气中二氧化碳含量超过350ppm(即每百万分空气中含350分二氧化碳) 就会严重危及珊瑚礁的生存-- 我们不仅仅是拿 整个暖水海洋珊瑚种群的生存在冒险, 不仅仅是拿海洋中四分之一鱼类的生存在冒险, 更是拿生活在贫穷发展中国家 超过5亿人的生命以及他们的生活 在冒险。
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,在选择把450ppm作为大气中二氧化碳含量的警戒线 以及协商把两度作为气候变化指标的过程中, 我们的所作所为是一个道德方面的选择。 我们实际上从某种意义上说, 在道义上选择了放弃珊瑚礁。 在结束演讲之前,我要说的是, 我们可能已经做出了造成珊瑚礁灭绝的举动。 让我们思考一下这意味着什么, 但请不要再继续这些举动了。 大自然母亲只有这么多的 生态资源和自然资产。 我们承受不起代价如此之大的这样道德选择。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)