Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!

翻译人员: Chencheng Guo 校对人员: Angelia King

I'm here to talk to you

我今天来谈谈

about the economic invisibility of nature.

自然界那些潜在的经济成本消耗。

The bad news

坏消息在于，

is that mother nature's back office isn't working yet,

大自然尚未启动后台结算，

so those invoices don't get issued.

因此我们对这些经济成本消耗一无所知。

But we need to do something about this problem.

但我们需要对这个问题采取行动。

I began my life as a markets professional

我的工作是研究消费市场，

and continued to take an interest,

现在仍对这个领域充满兴趣，

but most of my recent effort

而我最近大部分时间

has been looking at the value

都致力于研究那些

of what comes to human beings from nature,

由大自然带给人类

and which doesn't get priced by the markets.

且其价值未被纳入市场范畴的资源。

A project called TEEB was started in 2007,

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

and it was launched by a group of environment ministers

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)

of the G8+5.

的项目。

And their basic inspiration

激发他们发起这个项目的灵感

was a stern review of Lord Stern.

来源于Stern爵士（Nicholas Stern）一篇严肃的评论文章

They asked themselves a question:

他们提出了这样一个问题：

If economics could make such a convincing case

如果从经济学角度考虑问题

for early action on climate change,

能够说服人们在气候变化的初期采取相应措施，

well why can't the same be done for conservation?

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？

Why can't an equivalent case be made

同样的思维方式能否被运用到

for nature?

思考人与自然的关系上？

And the answer is: Yeah, it can.

答案是肯定的。

But it's not that straightforward.

然而，这一答案并非显而易见就能得到。

Biodiversity, the living fabric of this planet, is not a gas.

作为这个星球的生命构造，生物多样性并不是凭空存在的。

It exists in many layers,

它存在于多个层面中：

ecosystems, species and genes across many scales --

各个规模的生态系统，物种，基因---

international, national, local, community --

无论是国际间的，民族间的，本地的，还是社区内的---

and doing for nature

而且像Stern爵士和他的团队那样去研究大自然

what Lord Stern and his team did for nature is not that easy.

绝非易事。

And yet, we began.

尽管有种种困难，我们还是开始着手于这个项目。

We began the project with an interim report,

我们从一篇中期报告着手，

which quickly pulled together

里面汇集了

a lot of information that had been collected on the subject

许多研究者搜集的

by many, many researchers.

关于生态系统与生物多样性经济话题的信息。

And amongst our compiled results

我们从汇集的资料中

was the startling revelation

发现了这么一个让人惊讶的事实--

that, in fact, we were losing natural capital --

自然资产正在逐渐流失

the benefits that flow from nature to us.

--而这资产正是大自然馈赠给我们的。

We were losing it at an extraordinary rate --

它以极快的速度流失--

in fact, of the order of two to four trillion dollars-worth

事实上，这是一笔价值两到四万亿美金的

of natural capital.

自然资产。

This came out in 2008,

这个现象发生在2008年，

which was, of course, around the time that the banking crisis had shown

大约在同一时期，银行业的危机显示

that we had lost financial capital

我们正在损失一笔价值

of the order of two and a half trillion dollars.

2.5万亿美金的金融资产。

So this was comparable in size to that kind of loss.

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。

We then have gone on since

从那时起，

to present for [the] international community,

我们开始为国际性团体、

for governments,

为政府、

for local governments and for business

为地方政府和商业机构、

and for people, for you and me,

以及为和你我一样的普通民众

a whole slew of reports, which were presented at the U.N. last year,

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，

which address the economic invisibility of nature

报告中提出了自然界潜在的经济因素，

and describe what can be done to solve it.

并陈述了一些解决方法。

What is this about?

什么是“自然界潜在的经济因素”呢？

A picture that you're familiar with --

举个大家都熟悉的例子--

the Amazon rainforests.

亚马孙雨林。

It's a massive store of carbon, it's an amazing store of biodiversity,

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，

but what people don't really know

但人们并不真正明白

is this also is a rain factory.

它也是一个降雨工厂。

Because the northeastern trade winds,

因为东北信风

as they go over the Amazonas,

在越过亚马孙雨林时，

effectively gather the water vapor.

高效地聚集并带走了水蒸汽。

Something like 20 billion tons per day of water vapor

每天大约有200亿吨水蒸汽

is sucked up by the northeastern trade winds,

由东北信风吸收并带走，

and eventually precipitates in the form of rain

最终在拉普拉塔河盆地上

across the La Plata Basin.

形成降雨。

This rainfall cycle, this rainfall factory,

这个雨水循环，这个降雨工厂，

effectively feeds an agricultural economy

高效地滋养了拉丁美洲的农业经济，

of the order of 240 billion dollars-worth

而这一降水过程的经济价值

in Latin America.

高达2千4百亿美元。

But the question arises: Okay, so how much

问题来了：既然如此，那么

do Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina

乌拉圭、巴拉圭、阿根廷

and indeed the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil

以及巴西的马托格罗索州

pay for that vital input to that economy

为这些对它们经济产生至关重要影响的降水

to the state of Amazonas, which produces that rainfall?

向生产降水的亚马孙地区诸州支付多少费用呢？

And the answer is zilch,

答案是：零，

exactly zero.

一分钱也没付。

That's the economic invisibility of nature.

这就是“自然界潜在的经济因素”。

That can't keep going on,

我们不能让这种现象持续下去，

because economic incentives and disincentives are very powerful.

因为经济方面的正向以及反向激励有着显著效果。

Economics has become the currency of policy.

经济学已经成为政策的筹码。

And unless we address

除非我们提出

this invisibility,

潜在的经济成本这一议题，

we are going to get the results that we are seeing,

否则我们将得到我们现在所看到的后果--

which is a gradual degradation and loss

宝贵自然资产的

of this valuable natural asset.

逐渐退化和消失。

It's not just about the Amazonas, or indeed about rainforests.

这不仅仅关于亚马孙地区，还关乎雨林本身。

No matter what level you look at,

无论你从哪个层面看，

whether it's at the ecosystem level or at the species level or at the genetic level,

从生态系统层面也好、从物种层面、抑或从基因层面看也罢，

we see the same problem again and again.

同样的问题一再显现。

So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests

因此，降水循环和雨林中的水份保持

at an ecosystem level.

是位于整个生态系统层面的问题。

At the species level,

从物种层面来说，

it's been estimated that insect-based pollination,

昆虫的授粉过程，

bees pollinating fruit and so on,

例如蜜蜂给水果授粉等，

is something like 190 billion dollars-worth.

据估计大约含有1.9千亿美元的经济价值。

That's something like eight percent

这相当于全球农业总产量

of the total agricultural output globally.

的8%左右。

It completely passes below the radar screen.

这一过程完全未被有意识地侦测到。

But when did a bee actually ever give you an invoice?

蜜蜂什么时候为这一过程向你要过钱呢？

Or for that matter, if you look at the genetic level,

还有，如果从基因层面来看，

60 percent of medicines were prospected,

60%的药物都是最早在雨林或是暗礁处

were found first as molecules in a rainforest or a reef.

作为分子而被勘查、发现的。

Once again, most of that doesn't get paid.

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,

因此我开始从另一角度看这个话题：

which is, to whom should this get paid?

我们该向谁付这笔钱？

That genetic material

这些基因方面的材料

probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone,

也许应该属于（如果它们能够属于某些人的话）

to a local community of poor people

当地社区的穷人--

who parted with the knowledge that helped the researchers to find the molecule,

他们用自己的知识帮助研究人员找到这些

which then became the medicine.

最终成为药物的分子。

They were the ones that didn't get paid.

他们从未为此得到过报酬。

And if you look at the species level,

如果从物种层面看，

you saw about fish.

鱼类是个很好的例子。

Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant

如今，对于海洋渔场的消耗已经大到

that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor,

对于那些穷人、

the artisanal fisher folk

深谙捕鱼技艺并把它作为一门手艺的人、

and those who fish for their own livelihoods,

以及那些为了养活家人而捕鱼的人

to feed their families.

产生了严重影响。

Something like a billion people depend on fish,

大约十亿人口的生活依赖于鱼类，

the quantity of fish in the oceans.

依赖于海洋中鱼的数量。

A billion people depend on fish

十亿人把鱼作为他们

for their main source for animal protein.

摄入动物蛋白的主要来源。

And at this rate at which we are losing fish,

鱼类的数量如此迅速的减少，

it is a human problem of enormous dimensions,

构成了一个多维度的问题，

a health problem

一个我们从未遇见过的

of a kind we haven't seen before.

健康问题。

And finally, at the ecosystem level,

最后，从生态系统层面看，

whether it's flood prevention or drought control provided by the forests,

无论是从森林提供的防洪抗旱功能来说，

or whether it is the ability of poor farmers

从并不富裕的农民们

to go out and gather leaf litter

到森林中为他们的牛羊

for their cattle and goats,

搜集枯树叶作为饲料来说，

or whether it's the ability of their wives

还是从农妇们外出到森林中

to go and collect fuel wood from the forest,

搜集用于烤火的木头来说，

it is actually the poor

穷人们实际上更加依赖于

who depend most on these ecosystem services.

生态系统所提供的资源。

We did estimates in our study

我们在研究中做了如下估计：

that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia,

对于像巴西、印度、印尼这样的国家，

even though ecosystem services --

即使生态系统提供了充足资源--

these benefits that flow from nature to humanity for free --

这些是人类可免费从大自然获取的--

they're not very big in percentage terms of GDP --

从国内生产总值（GDP）来看，也没占多大比例--

two, four, eight, 10, 15 percent --

大约2%，4%，8%，10%，15%左右--

but in these countries, if we measure how much they're worth to the poor,

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，

the answers are more like

那么，这个答案更加可能是

45 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent.

45%，75%，90%。

That's the difference.

这就是差距所在。

Because these are important benefits for the poor.

因为对于穷人来说，自然资源是一项很重要的福利。

And you can't really have a proper model for development

想要建立一个恰当的发展模式，

if at the same time you're destroying or allowing

如果与此同时破坏或者

the degradation of the very asset, the most important asset,

任由最重要的发展资本--

which is your development asset,

生态基础设施--退化，

that is ecological infrastructure.

那么实现发展只是空谈。

How bad can things get?

这种情况能变得多糟糕呢？

Well here a picture of something called the mean species abundance.

这里有幅被称为“平均物种充足性”的图。

It's basically a measure

它用来衡量周围环境中

of how many tigers, toads, ticks or whatever on average

单位面积内平均来说

of biomass of various species are around.

有多少老虎、蟾蜍、壁虱或是其他不同物种。

The green represents the percentage.

绿色代表的是百分比。

If you start green, it's like 80 to 100 percent.

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%。

If it's yellow, it's 40 to 60 percent.

如果黄色，那么是40%到60%。

And these are percentages versus the original state, so to speak,

这些百分比是相对于最初状态来说的，

the pre-industrial era, 1750.

即工业革命前期，1750年。

Now I'm going to show you

现在，我将向你们展示

how business as usual will affect this.

寻常的商业化进程如何影响平均物种充足性。

And just watch the change in colors

看看图上的颜色

in India, China, Europe,

在印度、中国、欧洲、

sub-Saharan Africa

以及撒哈拉沙漠以南的非洲的变化，

as we move on and consume global biomass

如果全球单位面积内生物数量继续以现在的速率减少，

at a rate which is actually not going to be able to sustain us.

那么地球将无法维持人类的生存。

See that again.

回到这张图。

The only places that remain green -- and that's not good news --

坏消息是，唯一仍呈绿色的地区

is, in fact, places like the Gobi Desert,

事实上是戈壁区、

like the tundra and like the Sahara.

苔原冻土地带、撒哈拉沙漠之类的地方。

But that doesn't help because there were very few species

这些无济于事，因为生活在这些地方的物种本来就极少，

and volume of biomass there in the first place.

单位面积生物数量很小。

This is the challenge.

这就是挑战所在。

The reason this is happening

在我看来，

boils down, in my mind, to one basic problem,

这种现象发生的原因可以归结为一个最基本的问题，

which is our inability to perceive the difference

就是我们未能理解

between public benefits

公共利益

and private profits.

和个人利益之间的差别。

We tend to constantly ignore public wealth

我们往往倾向于无视公共财富，

simply because it is in the common wealth,

仅仅因为它是共同财富的一部分，

it's common goods.

是一项共同商品。

And here's an example from Thailand

举一个发生在泰国的例子，

where we found that, because the value of a mangrove is not that much --

我们发现，由于红树林的价值并不算高--

it's about $600 over the life of nine years that this has been measured --

据估计在它们9年的生命期内大约价值600美元--

compared to its value as a shrimp farm,

相对于养虾场来说

which is more like $9,600,

它的价值大约9600美元。

there has been a gradual trend to deplete the mangroves

红树林正渐渐被砍伐

and convert them to shrimp farms.

改建成养虾场。

But of course, if you look at exactly what those profits are,

当然，如果仔细看看这些利润究竟来自哪里，

almost 8,000 of those dollars

你会看到其中大约8000美元

are, in fact, subsidies.

实际上来自政府补贴。

So you compare the two sides of the coin

因此，这两种选择之间的经济价值差异

and you find that it's more like 1,200 to 600.

大约在1200到600美元之间。

That's not that hard.

这看起来并不算糟。

But on the other hand, if you start measuring,

但从另一方面去衡量，

how much would it actually cost

我们究竟要花多少钱

to restore the land of the shrimp farm

才能让被养虾场占用的土地

back to productive use?

恢复其生产作用？

Once salt deposition and chemical deposition

一旦土地被盐碱化或是形成化学淀积，

has had its effects,

恢复其生产作用的成本

that answer is more like $12,000 of cost.

很可能高达1.2万美元。

And if you see the benefits of the mangrove

如果考虑红树林

in terms of the storm protection and cyclone protection that you get

在暴雨、暴风发生时对土地提供的保护，

and in terms of the fisheries, the fish nurseries,

以及向穷人提供赖以生存的鱼群的

that provide fish for the poor,

养鱼场、鱼苗圃，

that answer is more like $11,000.

那么其潜在价值很可能达到1.1万美元。

So now look at the different lens.

现在，我们换个角度看问题。

If you look at the lens of public wealth

如果从公共财富

as against the lens of private profits,

而不是个人利益的角度看，

you get a completely different answer,

会得到完全不同的结论--

which is clearly conservation makes more sense,

我们应该保护红树林，

and not destruction.

而不是毁坏它。

So is this just a story from South Thailand?

这种情况仅仅发生在泰国南部吗？

Sorry, this is a global story.

遗憾的是，全球都存在这个现象。

And here's what the same calculation looks like,

这里展示的最近是用类似计算方法得到的结果--

which was done recently -- well I say recently, over the last 10 years --

“最近”是指过去十年--

by a group called TRUCOST.

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。

And they calculated for the top 3,000 corporations,

他们对排名前3000的公司进行了计算

what are the externalities?

--公司运营的外部效应是什么？

In other words, what are the costs of doing business as usual?

换句话说，公司运营的实际成本是多少？

This is not illegal stuff, this is basically business as usual,

公司日常运营范畴之内的某些举动虽然并不违法，

which causes climate-changing emissions, which have an economic cost.

但那些影响气候变化的排放物需被纳入经济成本。

It causes pollutants being issued, which have an economic cost,

公司运营过程中产生了污染物，这些需被纳入经济成本、

health cost and so on.

健康成本等的考虑范围。

Use of freshwater.

拿淡水的应用来举例。

If you drill water to make coke near a village farm,

如果你在一个农庄附近取水用来生产可乐，

that's not illegal, but yes, it costs the community.

这的确并不违法，但会对当地社区产生影响。

Can we stop this, and how?

我们能否阻止这一行为？如何去阻止？

I think the first point to make is that we need to recognize natural capital.

我认为首先要明确的一点是，需要认识到自然资产的存在。

Basically the stuff of life is natural capital,

自然资产是指那些有生命的东西，

and we need to recognize and build that into our systems.

我们需要承认它们的存在，并将其纳入经济体系中。

When we measure GDP

我们在衡量作为全国经济表现指标的

as a measure of economic performance at the national level,

国内生产总值时，

we don't include our biggest asset at the country level.

并未包含这个从国家层面来说最大的资产。

When we measure corporate performances,

我们衡量公司表现时，

we don't include our impacts on nature

也未包括对于自然的影响

and what our business costs society.

以及对于社会的影响。

That has to stop.

这种衡量方法必须被淘汰。

In fact, this was what really inspired my interest in this phase.

事实上，这一观点激发了我此阶段的兴趣所在。

I began a project way back called the Green Accounting Project.

我很久之前发起了一个名为“绿色会计”的项目。

That was in the early 2000s

21世纪初期，

when India was going gung-ho about GDP growth

随着一系列进程的推进，

as the means forward --

印度试图努力提高GDP增长--

looking at China with its stellar growths of eight, nine, 10 percent

看着中国每年8%，9%，10%的GDP稳步增速，

and wondering, why can we do the same?

想着“我们怎样也能实现这么迅速地增长呢？”

And a few friends of mine and I

我和我的一些朋友们认为

decided this doesn't make sense.

这一增长速度不合乎情理。

This is going to create more cost to society and more losses.

这将会为社会发展增加更多成本、带来更大损失。

So we decided to do a massive set of calculations

因此我们决定进行大量关于自然资产的计算，

and started producing green accounts for India and its states.

并开始为印度及其各州维护绿色账户。

That's how my interests began

我的兴趣由此引发，

and went to the TEEB project.

随之开展了TEEB（生态系统与生物多样性经济学）项目。

Calculating this at the national level is one thing, and it has begun.

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。

And the World Bank has acknowledged this

世界银行认识到这个的重要性，

and they've started a project called WAVES --

并开展了一个称为WAVES的项目，

Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services.

即“财富会计与生态系统评估”。

But calculating this at the next level,

在下一个层面，

that means at the business sector level, is important.

即在各商业部门进行此项计算，至关重要。

And actually we've done this with the TEEB project.

我们通过TEEB项目实现了这点。

We've done this for a very difficult case,

我们把这种计算应用到一个相当复杂的案例上--

which was for deforestation in China.

中国的森林退减。

This is important, because in China in 1997,

这个案例举足轻重，因为在1997年，

the Yellow River actually went dry for nine months

中国的黄河曾一度干涸九个月之久，

causing severe loss of agriculture output

导致农业产出严重减少，

and pain and loss to society.

也给社会带来了损失。

Just a year later the Yangtze flooded,

仅仅一年之后，长江爆发洪涝，

causing something like 5,500 deaths.

导致约5500人死亡。

So clearly there was a problem with deforestation.

显然，森林减退带来了一定问题。

It was associated largely with the construction industry.

这和建筑行业（对木材的需求）紧密相关。

And the Chinese government responded sensibly

中国政府作出了理智回应，

and placed a ban on felling.

颁布条令禁止乱砍滥伐。

A retrospective on 40 years

回顾过去40年，

shows that if we had accounted for these costs --

我们可以看到，如果算上所有成本代价--

the cost of loss of topsoil,

包括表层土壤的流失、

the cost of loss of waterways,

河道的干涸，

the lost productivity, the loss to local communities

以及由所有这些因素造成的

as a result of all these factors,

生产力减退、对当地社区的损害、

desertification and so on --

荒漠化等等问题--

those costs are almost twice as much

这些代价几乎是砍伐森林所得木材

as the market price of timber.

市场价格的两倍。

So in fact, the price of timber in the Beijing marketplace

因此，北京市面上木材的价格

ought to have been three-times what it was

如果反映其对中国社会造成的

had it reflected the true pain and the costs

实际影响及其实际成本，

to the society within China.

应该是目前价格的三倍。

Of course, after the event one can be wise.

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,

方法是在公司层面开展关于潜在经济成本的计算，

to take leadership forward,

把它作为领导决策的一部分，

and to do it for as many important sectors which have a cost,

尽可能多地囊括产生此类成本的部门，

and to disclose these answers.

并公布计算结果。

Someone once asked me, "Who is better or worse,

有人曾问我：“论对于印尼雨林的影响而言，

is it Unilever or is it P&G

联合利华和宝洁两家公司

when it comes to their impact on rainforests in Indonesia?"

谁造成的正面或者负面影响更大？”

And I couldn't answer because neither of these companies,

我无法做出回答，因为这两家公司

good though they are and professional though they are,

尽管它们都很优秀、都很专业

do not calculate or disclose their externalities.

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 --

我们来看看类似于彪马PUMA之类的公司--

Jochen Zeitz, their CEO and chairman,

他们的CEO兼主席Jochen Zeitz，

once challenged me at a function,

曾向我发起过关于计算公司潜在经济成本的挑战，

saying that he's going to implement my project before I finish it.

并说他会在我完成项目之前，提前实现它。

Well I think we kind of did it at the same time, but he's done it.

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。

He's basically worked the cost to PUMA.

基本上完成了彪马在运营过程中潜在经济成本的计算。

PUMA has 2.7 billion dollars of turnover,

彪马的营业额为27亿美元，

300 million dollars of profits,

拥有3亿美元利润，

200 million dollars after tax,

税后利润为2亿美元，

94 million dollars of externalities, cost to business.

9400万为外部效应，这是公司运营成本的一部分。

Now that's not a happy situation for them,

对于他们来说，这并不是一个可喜的处境，

but they have the confidence and the courage

但他们有信心、有勇气

to come forward and say, "Here's what we are measuring.

面对这一情形并说：“我们就是这么衡量公司效益的。

We are measuring it because we know

我们衡量这些潜在成本是因为我们知道

that you cannot manage what you do not measure."

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

我想，这可以作为一个用来参照

and for us to draw comfort from.

并从中得到慰藉的例子。

If more companies did this,

如果更多的公司参与到这个项目中，

and if more sectors engaged this as sectors,

如果更多部门把它纳入考虑范围，

you could have analysts, business analysts,

你就可以请分析师、商业分析师

and you could have people like us and consumers and NGOs

以及像我们一样的职业人员、消费者、NGO共同参与，

actually look and compare the social performance of companies.

来研究与比较各公司的社会表现。

Today we can't yet do that, but I think the path is laid out.

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。

This can be done.

这个想法是可以实现的。

And I'm delighted that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in the U.K.

很高兴，英国的特许会计师协会

has already set up a coalition to do this,

已经成立了一个致力于此的联盟

an international coalition.

-- 一个国际性联盟。

The other favorite, if you like, solution for me

另外一个我最喜欢的解决方案，不知道你们是否喜欢，

is the creation of green carbon markets.

是绿碳市场的成立。

And by the way, these are my favorites --

顺便提一句，这是我最喜欢的两个创意--

externalities calculation and green carbon markets.

计算对于环境的外部影响，以及绿碳市场。

TEEB has more than a dozen separate groups of solutions

TEEB有许多独立的解决方案

including protected area evaluation

--包括对受保护地区的评估、

and payments for ecosystem services

为生态系统提供的服务付费、

and eco-certification and you name it, but these are the favorites.

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。

What's green carbon?

何谓“绿碳排放”？

Today what we have is basically a brown carbon marketplace.

现今我们拥有的基本是一个“褐碳市场”。

It's about energy emissions.

这个概念和能源排放有关。

The European Union ETS is the main marketplace.

欧盟排放贸易体系（ European Union Emissions Trading Scheme）是主要市场。

It's not doing too well. We've over-issued.

这一体系运行得并不好，排放量已超额。

A bit like inflation: you over-issue currency,

有点像通货膨胀：如果超额发行货币，

you get what you see, declining prices.

后果就是价格下跌。

But that's all about energy and industry.

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

同样超标的还有其他排放物，

like black carbon, that is soot.

比如说“黑碳排放”，也就是煤烟排放。

What we're also missing is blue carbon,

“蓝碳排放”也已超标，

which, by the way, is the largest store of carbon --

顺便说，它的碳含量最大--

more than 55 percent.

超过碳排放总量的55%。

Thankfully, the flux, in other words, the flow of emissions

好在这些排放物

from the ocean to the atmosphere and vice versa,

从海洋流向空气再回流海洋的过程

is more or less balanced.

或多或少还算平衡。

In fact, what's being absorbed

事实上，我们的排放物中

is something like 25 percent of our emissions,

有大约25%在这一过程中被吸收，

which then leads to acidification

随而导致海水的酸化

or lower alkalinity in oceans.

或是海水碱性的降低。

More of that in a minute.

再补充一句。

And finally, there's deforestation,

此外，还有森林的减退、

and there's emission of methane

以及农业活动中

from agriculture.

释放出的甲烷。

Green carbon,

“绿碳排放”

which is the deforestation and agricultural emissions,

--即森林减退和农业排放--

and blue carbon

与“蓝碳排放”

together comprise 25 percent of our emissions.

加起来占了总碳排放量的25%。

We have the means already in our hands,

我们手头已经有了解决方法，

through a structure, through a mechanism, called REDD Plus --

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--

a scheme for the reduced emissions

来制定针对减少排放的计划，

from deforestation and forest degradation.

用以解决由乱砍滥伐和森林退化引起的问题。

And already Norway has contributed a billion dollars each

挪威已经向印尼和巴西

towards Indonesia and Brazil

各注资十亿美元

to implement this Red Plus scheme.

用来实施“REDD Plus”计划。

So we actually have some movement forward.

我们确实在向好的方面进展。

But the thing is to do a lot more of that.

但需要做的远比这些多。

Will this solve the problem? Will economics solve everything?

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？

Well I'm afraid not.

恐怕不行。

There is an area that is the oceans, coral reefs.

这个问题有一部分涉及到海洋以及珊瑚礁。

As you can see,

可以看到，

they cut across the entire globe

它们分割了整个地球，

all the way from Micronesia

从密克罗尼西亚岛群开始，

across Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Madagascar

横穿印尼、马来西亚、印度、马达加斯加，

and to the West of the Caribbean.

直达加勒比海西侧。

These red dots, these red areas,

这些红点、这些红色区域，

basically provide the food and livelihood

为5亿多人口

for more than half a billion people.

提供了食物和生存手段。

So that's almost an eighth of society.

这比例几乎占了整个社会的八分之一。

And the sad thing is that, as these coral reefs are lost --

坏消息在于，这些珊瑚礁正渐渐消失--

and scientists tell us

据科学家说，

that any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above 350 parts per million

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）

is too dangerous for the survival of these reefs --

就会严重危及珊瑚礁的生存--

we are not only risking the extinction

我们不仅仅是拿

of the entire coral species, the warm water corals,

整个暖水海洋珊瑚种群的生存在冒险，

we're not only risking a fourth of all fish species which are in the oceans,

不仅仅是拿海洋中四分之一鱼类的生存在冒险，

but we are risking the very lives and livelihoods

更是拿生活在贫穷发展中国家

of more than 500 million people

超过5亿人的生命以及他们的生活

who live in the developing world in poor countries.

在冒险。

So in selecting targets of 450 parts per million

因此，在选择把450ppm作为大气中二氧化碳含量的警戒线

and selecting two degrees at the climate negotiations,

以及协商把两度作为气候变化指标的过程中，

what we have done is we've made an ethical choice.

我们的所作所为是一个道德方面的选择。

We've actually kind of made an ethical choice in society

我们实际上从某种意义上说，

to not have coral reefs.

在道义上选择了放弃珊瑚礁。

Well what I will say to you in parting

在结束演讲之前，我要说的是，

is that we may have done that.

我们可能已经做出了造成珊瑚礁灭绝的举动。

Let's think about it and what it means,

让我们思考一下这意味着什么，

but please, let's not do more of that.

但请不要再继续这些举动了。

Because mother nature only has that much

大自然母亲只有这么多的

in ecological infrastructure and that much natural capital.

生态资源和自然资产。

I don't think we can afford too much of such ethical choices.

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）