I have a two-year-old daughter named Naya who is under the mistaken impression that this conference is named in honor of her father.
我有個二歲的女兒叫娜亞, 她誤以為 這場大會取這個名字 是為了向她的父親致敬。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Who am I to contradict my baby girl?
我是何方神聖, 膽敢駁斥我的寶貝女兒?
As many of you know, there's something about becoming a parent that concentrates the mind on long-term problems like climate change. It was the birth of my daughter that inspired me to launch this climate organization, in order to counteract the excessive polarization of this issue in the United States, and to find a conservative pathway forward. Yes, folks, a Republican climate solution is possible, and you know what? It may even be better.
你們很多人都了解,為人父母後, 才會全心關注 像氣候變遷這種長期的問題。 我就是因為女兒誕生, 才啟發我發起這個氣候組織, 來對抗這個在美國 已過度兩極化的問題, 並尋找一條能讓保守派向前的道路。 沒錯,鄉親父老,共和黨的 氣候變遷解方並非遙不可及, 而且你知道嗎? 可能還比其它的更好!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Let me try to prove that to you.
讓我證明給大家看。
What we really need is a killer app to climate policy. In the technology world, a killer app is an application so transformative that it creates its own market, like Uber. In the climate world, a killer app is a new solution so promising that it can break through the seemingly insurmountable barriers to progress. These include the psychological barrier. Climate advocates have long been encouraging their fellow citizens to make short-term sacrifices now for benefits that accrue to other people in other countries 30 or 40 years in the future. It just doesn't fly because it runs contrary to basic human nature.
對氣候政策, 我們真正需要的是殺手應用。 在科技界,殺手應用 是指改變力量超強的應用程式, 能創造出自己的市場, 就像優步。 在氣候變遷世界, 殺手應用是一種 前景可期的新解方, 能突破幾乎無法克服的障礙, 因而進步。 這包括心理障礙。 倡導氣候變遷的人 長期以來一直鼓勵同胞 在當下做出短暫犧牲, 造福其它國家 未來三、四十年的人民, 這哪說得過去? 因為這跟人的本性大相逕庭。
Next is the geopolitical barrier. Under the current rules of global trade, countries have a strong incentive to free ride off the emissions reductions of other nations, instead of strengthening their own programs. This has been the curse of every international climate negotiations, including Paris. Finally, we have the partisan barrier. Even the most committed countries -- Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada -- are nowhere near reducing emissions at the required scale and speed. Not even close. And the partisan climate divide is far more acute here in the United States. We are fundamentally stuck, and that is why we need a killer app of climate policy to break through each of these barriers.
另外就是地緣政治障礙。 在現行的全球貿易規則下, 各國都有很強的動機要占便宜, 讓其它國家去減排放量, 卻不加強自己的計畫。 這是每一個國際氣候協定 都逃不掉的詛咒, 包括巴黎協議。 最後,我們還有黨派障礙。 即使是最盡心盡意的國家── 德國、英國、加拿大── 都無法依照規定的 規模和速度減少排放。 差的遠了。 而黨派之間的氣候鴻溝 在美國這裡更是有過之而無不及。 我們完全卡住了, 這就是為什麼我們需要 氣候政策的殺手應用 來突破上述的障礙。
I'm convinced that the road to climate progress in the United States runs through the Republican Party and the business community. So in launching the Climate Leadership Council, I started by reaching out to a who's who of Republican elder statesmen and business leaders, including James Baker and George Schultz, the two most respected Republican elder statesmen in America; Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw, the two most respected conservative economists in the country; and Henry Paulson and Rob Walton, two of the most successful and admired business leaders. Together, we co-authored "The Conservative Case For Carbon Dividends." This represents the first time that Republican leaders put forth a concrete market-based climate solution.
我相信美國的氣候進步之路 必要貫穿共和黨 及商業界。 所以我發起氣候領導委員會, 開始嘗試與共和黨的政治大老 及商業領袖溝通, 包括詹姆斯·貝克及喬治·舒茲, 這兩位倍受尊重的 美國共和黨政治大老; 馬丁·費爾德斯坦及尼可拉斯·曼昆, 這兩位在本國最受推崇的 保守派經濟學家; 及亨利·鮑爾森和羅伯·沃爾頓, 這兩位最成功最受景仰的商業領袖。 我們一起合寫 「保守派的碳利實例」。 這是第一次 由共和黨領袖提出 具體的市場經濟氣候方案。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you.
謝謝!
(Applause)
(掌聲)
We presented our plan at the White House two weeks after President Trump moved in. Almost every leading editorial board in the country has since endorsed our plan, and Fortune 100 companies from a wide range of industries are now getting behind it. So by now you're probably wondering, what exactly is this plan?
我們在川普總統上任兩週後 在白宮呈獻此計劃。 幾乎所有美國主要的報章編輯委員會 都背書支持我們的計劃, 橫跨各界的財星百大企業 也開始支持它。 所以此刻你大概在想, 到底這是什麼計劃?
Well, our carbon dividends solution is based on four pillars. The first is a gradually rising carbon tax. Although capitalism is a wonderful system, like many operating systems, it's prone to bugs, which, in this case, are called "market failures." By far the largest is that market prices fail to take social and environmental costs into account. That means every market transaction is based on incorrect information. This fundamental bug of capitalism, more than any other single factor, is to blame for our climate predicament.
我們的碳利方法有四大支柱。 第一是逐步增加碳稅。 雖然資本主義是很棒的系統, 但它就像很多作業系統一樣, 很容易出現錯誤, 在我們這個情況 就叫作「市場失靈」。 到目前為止最大的失靈, 就是市場價格不能 將社會及環境成本加進來。 這意味著每一筆市場交易 都是基於錯誤的資訊。 資本主義這項根本錯誤, 超過其它任何因子, 要為我們的氣候困境 付上最大的責任。
Now in theory, this should be an easy problem to fix. Economists agree that the best solution is to put a price on the carbon content of fossil fuels, otherwise known as a carbon tax. This would discourage carbon emissions in every single economic transaction, every day of the year. However, a carbon tax by itself has proven to be unpopular and a political dead end. The answer is to return all the money raised directly to citizens, in the form of equal monthly dividends. This would transform an unpopular carbon tax into a popular and populist solution, and it would also solve the underlying psychological barrier that we discussed, by giving everyone a concrete benefit in the here and now.
理論上,這應是很容易解決的問題。 經濟學家同意 最好的解方就是 把石化燃料裡的碳標上價錢, 也就是所謂的碳稅。 這樣就會鼓勵減少 在每年每天,每一筆 經濟交易中的碳排放。 然而,碳稅本身已證明不受歡迎, 在政治面也走到死胡同。 解答就是把所有徵收到的錢 直接回饋給老百姓, 以每月固定的紅利形式。 這樣會把不受歡迎的碳稅 變成受歡迎、帶平民主義 色彩的解決方案, 而且這也能解決 我們剛剛討論過的潛在心理障礙, 因為我們讓每一個人 都能在當下拿到具體的好處。
And these benefits would be significant. Assuming a carbon tax rate that starts at 40 dollars per ton, a family of four would receive 2,000 dollars per year from the get-go. According to the US Treasury Department, the bottom 70 percent of Americans would receive more in dividends than they would pay in increased energy prices. That means 223 million Americans would win economically from solving climate change. And that --
這些好處很重要。 假設碳稅的起價是每噸四十美元, 一開始一個四口之家 每年就會收到兩千美元。 根據美國財務部的資料, 收入在後 70% 的美國人 收到的紅利, 會比他們付的上漲能源價格還多。 這意味著二億二千三百萬美國人, 會因為解決氣候變遷問題 而贏得經濟上的好處。 而且這──
(Applause)
(掌聲)
is revolutionary, and could fundamentally alter climate politics.
這是很大的變革, 還會從根本改變氣候政策。
But there's another revolutionary element here. The amount of the dividend would grow as the carbon tax rate increases. The more we protect our climate, the more our citizens benefit. This creates a positive feedback loop, which is crucial, because the only way we will reach our long-term emission-reduction goals is if the carbon tax rate goes up every year.
但是這裡還有另一項變革。 紅利金額 會隨著碳稅率增加而成長。 我們愈保護氣候, 老百姓就得到愈多好處。 這會產生正向回饋, 而這很重要, 因為我們要達到排放減量 長期目標的唯一方法, 就是要每年增加碳稅率。
The third pillar of our program is eliminating regulations that are no longer needed once a carbon dividends plan is enacted. This is a key selling point to Republicans and business leaders. So why should we trade climate regulations for a price on carbon? Well, let me show you. Our plan would achieve nearly twice the emissions reductions of all Obama-era climate regulations combined, and nearly three times the new baseline after President Trump repeals all of those regulations. That assumes a carbon tax starting at 40 dollars per ton, which translates into roughly an extra 36 cents per gallon of gas. Our plan by itself would meet the high end of America's commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement, and as you can see, the emissions reductions would continue over time. This illustrates the power of a conservative climate solution based on free markets and limited government. We would end up with less regulation and far less pollution at the same time, while helping working-class Americans get ahead. Doesn't that sound like something we could all support?
這個計劃的第三個支柱就是廢除 不合時宜的法規, 在碳紅利開始實施之後。 這對共和黨及商業領袖是一大賣點。 我們為什麼要拿 氣候法規跟碳的價錢交換呢? 嗯,給大家看一下。 我們的計劃有不但可能 讓排放減量目標, 比歐巴馬時代全部的 氣候法規所達成的高一倍, 在川普總統廢止所有氣候法規後, 還會高出幾乎多兩倍的目標。 那假設碳稅起價為每噸四十美元, 換算出來每加侖汽油 大約會增收 36 美分。 我們的計劃本身 就會達到美國在巴黎氣候協議 承諾的減量最大值, 就像你們看到的, 排放減量會隨著時間持續下去。 這說明了保守派氣候解方的力量, 根據自由市場和有限政府的理念。 我們有可能會有較少的法規, 同時卻產生更少的汙染, 也可以幫助美國勞工階級成功。 這難道不是我們都會支持的嗎?
(Applause)
(掌聲)
The fourth and final pillar of our program is a new climate domino effect, based on border carbon adjustments. Now that may sound complicated, but it, too, is revolutionary, because it provides us a whole new strategy to reach a global price on carbon, which is ultimately what we need. Let me show you an example. Suppose Country A adopts a carbon dividends plan, and Country B does not. Well, to level the playing field and protect the competitiveness of its industries, Country A would tax imports from Country B based on their carbon content. Fair enough. But here's where it gets really interesting, because the money raised at the border would increase the dividends going to the citizens of Country A. Well, how long do you think it would take the public in Country B to realize that that money should be going to them, and to push for a carbon dividends plan in their own land? Add a few more countries, and we get a new climate domino effect.
本計劃第四項也是最後一個支柱, 就是嶄新的氣候骨牌效應, 根據邊境調整措施。 這聽起來好像很複雜, 但是這其實也很革新, 因為這提供我們全新的策略 找出碳的全球定價, 那正是我們的終極目標。 請大家看一個例子。 假設甲國採取了碳紅利計畫, 但是乙國沒有。 那麼,為了使兩邊交易公平, 並保護各自的工業競爭力, 甲國會對乙國 按照物品碳含量課進口稅。 很公平。 但這就是事情變得有意思的地方。 因為在邊境收到的錢 會增加甲國老百姓得到的紅利。 那麼,你猜乙國百姓 要多久以後才會發現 那筆錢其實應該歸給他們, 然後要求自己的政府 也實施碳紅利計畫? 再多加幾個國家, 我們就得到新的氣候骨牌效應。
Once one major country or region adopts carbon dividends with border carbon adjustments, other countries are compelled to follow suit. One by one the dominoes fall. And this domino effect could start anywhere. My preference, strongly, is the United States, but it could also start in the United Kingdom, in Germany or another European country, or even in China.
一旦某強國或地區採取碳紅利, 再加上邊境調整措施, 別的國家就必須跟著做。 骨牌一個接一個倒下。 這種骨牌效應可以從任何地方開始。 我的首選,當然是美國, 但是也可以從英國, 從德國或其他歐洲國家, 甚至從中國開始。
Let's take China as an example. China is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but what its leaders care even more about is transitioning their economy to consumer-led economic development. Well, nothing could do more to hasten that transition than giving every Chinese citizen a monthly dividend. In fact, this is the only policy solution that would enable China to meet its environmental and economic goals at the same time.
就以中國為例。 中國承諾要減少 溫室效應氣體的排放量, 但是該國的領導者更在乎 要將經濟轉型成 消費者導向的經濟發展。 沒有比這個更能加速轉型, 就是發給每一位中國百姓 一份月付型紅利。 事實上,只有這個政策解決方案, 能讓中國同時達到環境保護 及經濟發展的雙重目標。
That's why this is the killer app of climate policy, because it would enable us to overcome each of the barriers we discussed earlier: the psychological barrier, the partisan barrier, and, as we've just seen, the geopolitical barrier. All we need is a country to lead the way. And one method of finding what you're looking for is to take out an ad. So let's read this one together.
那也就是為什麼這就是 氣候政策的殺手應用, 因為這能讓我們克服 我們剛剛談過的每一道障礙: 心理障礙、政黨障礙, 及我們剛剛看到的地緣政治障礙。 我們所需的只是一個 率先起步的國家。 找到我們在尋找的東西的方法 就是來一段廣告。 我們一起讀一下這個。
Wanted: country to pioneer carbon dividends plan. Cost to country: zero. Starting date: as soon as possible. Advantages: most effective climate solution, popular and populist, pro-growth and pro-business, shrinks government and helps the working class. Additional compensation: gratitude of current and future generations, including my daughter.
徵求啟示:誠徵願意率先實施 碳紅利計畫的國家。 費用:零。 開始日期:愈快愈好。 優勢:最有效的氣候解決方案, 受歡迎且大眾取向, 親成長派,親商業派, 縮小政府,並幫助勞工階級。 附加報酬:受現在及未來世代的感謝, 包括我的女兒。
Thank you.
謝謝!
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Chris Anderson: Just one question for you, Ted. I'm actually not sure I've seen a conservative get a standing O at TED before that. That's pretty cool. The logic seems really powerful, but some people you talk to in politics say it's hard to imagine this still getting through Congress. How are you feeling about momentum behind this?
克理斯安德森:泰德, 我只有一個問題要問你。 我其實沒什麼印象 曾見過什麼保守派人士 在 TED 大會受起立致敬。 好酷! 這個邏輯似乎真的很強, 但是某些曾與你談過的政治人物 說這很難通過議院支持。 你對這背後的氣勢感覺如何?
Ted Halstead: So I understand that many are very pessimistic about what's happening in the United States with President Trump. I'm less pessimistic; here's why. The actions of this White House, the early actions on climate, are just the first move in a complex game of climate chess. So far it's been a repeal-only strategy; the pressure is going to mount for a replacement program, which is where we come in. And there are three reasons why, which I'll go through real quickly.
泰德浩思得:我了解很多人對於 美國現在在川普總統之下的 情勢非常悲觀。 我稍微好一點;理由是: 白宮的動作, 在氣候方面早期的動作, 只是這場複雜氣候棋局的頭先幾步。 到目前為止都還停留在 「要廢除」這個策略; 壓力會施加在取而代之的計畫上, 這也就是我們能出手的地方。 有三大理由,我快快解釋一下。
One, the business community is fundamentally parting ways with the White House on climate change. In fact, we're finding a number of Fortune 100 companies supporting our program. Within two months, we're going to be announcing some really surprising names coming out in favor of this program. Two, there is no issue in American politics where there's a more fundamental gap between the Republican base and the Republican leadership than climate change. And three, thinking of this analogy of chess, the big decision up ahead is: Does the administration stay in Paris? Well, let's pan it out both ways. If it stays in Paris, as many are pushing for in the administration, well then that begs a question: What's the plan? We have the plan. But if they don't stay in Paris, the international pressure will be overwhelming. Our Secretary of State will be asking other countries for NATO contributions, and they'll be saying, "No, give us our Paris commitment. Come through on your commitments, we'll come through on ours."
第一,商業界在根本上 與白宮的氣候變遷政策大相逕庭。 事實上,我們發現 不少財星百大公司支持我們的計畫。 我們將在兩個月內宣布 會讓人大吃一驚的支持者名單。 第二,美國政治上 只有氣候變遷這個議題 能在共和黨基層 及共和黨領導間 造成這麼大的根本差距。 第三,就用棋局對弈來比擬, 橫在我們面前的重大決定是: 這個政府會不會繼續參與巴黎協議? 我們來看一下正反兩面。 如果維持巴黎協定, 就像很多人當下正在政府裡推動的, 那麼就要問一個問題: 你有什麼計畫? 我們有計畫。 但是如果他們退出巴黎, 國際的壓力會排山倒海而來。 我們的國務卿會要求 其它北約國家達成財務基準, 他們就會回說: 「不,給我巴黎承諾。 履行你的承諾, 我們就會做我們該做的。」
So, international, business and even the Republican base will all be calling for a Republican replacement plan. And, hopefully, we've provided one.
所以,國際間、商業界 甚至共和黨基層 都在要求共和黨提出替代方案。 所以,希望我們這個就是解答。
CA: Thank you so much, Ted.
克:非常感謝你,泰德。
TH: Thank you, Chris.
泰:謝謝你,克理斯。
(Applause)
(掌聲)