Jason Clay: How big brands can help save biodiversity

翻译人员: Boyang Zhu 校对人员: Angelia King

I grew up on a small farm in Missouri.

我在密苏里州的一个小农场长大。

We lived on less than a dollar a day

我们以每天少于一美元的生活费

for about 15 years.

生活了大概15年。

I got a scholarship, went to university,

我获得了奖学金，进了大学，

studied international agriculture, studied anthropology,

学习国际农业以及人类学，

and decided I was going to give back.

并打算要回报社会。

I was going to work with small farmers.

我曾和小农场主一起工作。

I was going to help alleviate poverty.

也为缓解贫困而努力过。

I was going to work on international development,

还参与了国际化开发。

and then I took a turn

接着我改变了想法

and ended up here.

结果混到了这里。

Now, if you get a Ph.D., and you decide not to teach,

今天如果你获得了一个博士学位，又不想去教书，

you don't always end up in a place like this.

通常也不会来到这样的一个地方。

It's a choice. You might end up driving a taxicab.

这是个选择，你最终可能会去开的士。

You could be in New York.

你可能会在纽约。

What I found was,

我所发现的是，

I started working with refugees and famine victims --

自己的工作在难民和饱受饥荒的人群中展开－

small farmers, all, or nearly all --

小农场的农民，全部或者绝大多数－

who had been dispossessed and displaced.

都是被逐出家园或被迫流离。

Now, what I'd been trained to do

我所接受的培训是

was methodological research on such people.

对这样的人群进行方法论的研究。

So I did it: I found out how many women

我做了这样的研究： 我发现了

had been raped en route to these camps.

在去向这些难民营的途中多少女性遭遇性侵害。

I found out how many people had been put in jail,

我发现了多少人被投进了监狱，

how many family members had been killed.

多少家庭成员被杀害。

I assessed how long they were going to stay

我估算出他们大概会待多久

and how much it would take to feed them.

并需要多少粮食。

And I got really good at predicting

结果我变得非常擅长预测

how many body bags you would need

给在这些营地中将要死去的人们

for the people who were going to die in these camps.

需要装多少尸袋。

Now this is God's work, but it's not my work.

这是上帝的工作，不是我的工作。

It's not the work I set out to do.

这不是我当初想做的工作。

So I was at a Grateful Dead benefit concert on the rainforests

1988年我曾经出席一场‘感恩而死’乐队关于热带雨林

in 1988.

的公益演唱会。

I met a guy -- the guy on the left.

我遇见了一个人，左边那个。

His name was Ben.

他的名字叫本。

He said, "What can I do to save the rainforests?"

他说：“我能为拯救热带雨林做些什么？”

I said, "Well, Ben, what do you do?"

我问：“本，你打算做什么？”

"I make ice cream."

“我生产冰激凌。”

So I said, "Well, you've got to make

我就说，“那你就要做

a rainforest ice cream.

一种热带雨林冰激凌。

And you've got to use nuts from the rainforests

而且你要用热带雨林里的花生

to show that forests are worth more as forests

来展现它们作为雨林的价值要大于

than they are as pasture."

它们作为牧草场的价值。”

He said, "Okay."

他说，“好的。”

Within a year,

不到一年，

Rainforest Crunch was on the shelves.

热带雨林系列冰激凌上架销售。

It was a great success.

卖的非常好。

We did our first million-dollars-worth of trade

我们通过30天的集中采购和21天的出售

by buying on 30 days and selling on 21.

做成了第一比价值百万美元的贸易。

That gets your adrenaline going.

这让人兴奋不已。

Then we had a four and a half million-dollar line of credit

接着因为当时我们的声誉很好，

because we were credit-worthy at that point.

我们拿到了450万美元的信贷。

We had 15 to 20, maybe 22 percent

我们占有了巴西花生全球市场的15％到20％，

of the global Brazil-nut market.

或许是22％。

We paid two to three times more than anybody else.

我们支付比别人多两到三倍的价钱用来采购。

Everybody else raised their prices to the gatherers of Brazil nuts

其他所有人都不得不提价来采购巴西花生

because we would buy it otherwise.

因为不这样的话，巴西花生就被我们买走了。

A great success.

这执行地非常成功。

50 companies signed up, 200 products came out,

与50家公司签定合同，我们生产200种商品，

generated 100 million in sales.

创造了1亿的销售额。

It failed.

但它还是失败的。

Why did it fail?

为什么说是失败的？

Because the people who were gathering Brazil nuts

因为采购巴西花生的人

weren't the same people who were cutting the forests.

不是那些砍伐雨林的人。

And the people who made money from Brazil nuts

而且从巴西花生上赚钱的人

were not the people who made money from cutting the forests.

也不是通过砍伐雨林而赚钱的人。

We were attacking the wrong driver.

我们没找准这问题的切入点。

We needed to be working on beef.

我们本应该在牛肉，

We needed to be working on lumber.

木材，还有大豆上

We needed to be working on soy --

花功夫，

things that we were not focused on.

但是我们没有集中精力关注这些东西。

So let's go back to Sudan.

回到苏丹。

I often talk to refugees:

我经常和难民聊天：

"Why was it that the West didn't realize

“为什么西方国家意识不到

that famines are caused by policies and politics,

饥荒是由政策和政治导致的，

not by weather?"

而不是天气？”

And this farmer said to me, one day,

有一天这位农民对我

something that was very profound.

说了一些意味深长的话。

He said, "You can't wake a person who's pretending to sleep."

他说，“你很难把一个装睡的人叫醒。”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Okay. Fast forward.

好吧，快进一下。

We live on a planet.

我们生活在一个行星上，

There's just one of them.

像这样的行星只有一个。

We've got to wake up to the fact

我们一定要清醒过来并意识到这个情况

that we don't have any more

没有其他的了，

and that this is a finite planet.

而且这是一个资源有限的行星。

We know the limits of the resources we have.

我们清楚所拥有的资源的极限。

We may be able to use them differently.

我们或许可以换个方法来使用它们。

We may have some innovative, new ideas.

我们或许可以有一些革新，一些新的点子。

But in general, this is what we've got.

但从总体上讲，这些就是我们所有的。

There's no more of it.

没别的了。

There's a basic equation that we can't get away from.

有一个我们不容回避的基本的公式。

Population times consumption

人口乘上消耗

has got to have some kind of relationship to the planet,

一定是和这个行星有某种关系，

and right now, it's a simple "not equal."

而现在，这关系就是“不相等”。

Our work shows that we're living

我们的调研显示我们现在的生活消耗

at about 1.3 planets.

大约是在地球的承受范围1.3倍。

Since 1990,

自1990年起，

we crossed the line

我们就已经越过了

of being in a sustainable relationship to the planet.

保持与地球可持续关系的界限。

Now we're at 1.3.

现在是1.3倍。

If we were farmers, we'd be eating our seed.

如果我们是农民，我们就已经在吃种子。

For bankers, we'd be living off the principal, not the interest.

如果是银行家，我们在依靠本金过活，而不是利息。

This is where we stand today.

这就是我们今天的处境。

A lot of people like to point

很多人喜欢把

to some place else as the cause of the problem.

别的事情说成是问题的起因。

It's always population growth.

总是拿人口增长说事。

Population growth's important,

人口增长是很重要，

but it's also about how much each person consumes.

但人均消耗也很重要。

So when the average American

当美国人均

consumes 43 times as much

消费是非洲人均消费

as the average African,

的43倍之多，

we've got to think that consumption is an issue.

我们应当要把消耗正视为一个问题。

It's not just about population,

而不只是人口问题，

and it's not just about them; it's about us.

不仅仅是人口问题，还是关于我们消耗的问题。

But it's not just about people;

不过这也不光是人的问题；

it's about lifestyles.

而是关于生活方式。

There's very good evidence --

这有一个非常有利的证据－

again, we don't necessarily have

的确，我们还没有

a peer-reviewed methodology

一个无懈可击的

that's bulletproof yet --

专家评审的方法－

but there's very good evidence

但是的确有非常好的证据可以证明

that the average cat in Europe

在欧洲平均每只猫

has a larger environmental footprint in its lifetime

在其一生中所有的生态足迹要大于

than the average African.

非洲人均水平的生态足迹。

You think that's not an issue going forward?

大家不认为这是前进道路上的一个问题吗？

You think that's not a question

我们应该如何使用地球的资源，

as to how we should be using the Earth's resources?

大家觉得这不是个问题吗？

Let's go back and visit our equation.

回到我们的等式。

In 2000, we had six billion people on the planet.

2000年，地球上有60亿人。

They were consuming what they were consuming --

他们消耗着他们所需要消耗的－

let's say one unit of consumption each.

我们假设每个人消耗一个单位的资源。

We have six billion units of consumption.

那我们就有60亿个单位消耗。

By 2050,

到2050年，

we're going to have nine billion people -- all the scientists agree.

我们就会有90亿人－所有的科学家都是这么认为。

They're all going to consume twice as much as they currently do --

他们都将消耗两倍于现在人均消耗的资源－

scientists, again, agree --

科学家也都同意这点－

because income is going to grow in developing countries

因为在发展中国家的收入都会增长

five times what it is today --

至今天的5倍－

on global average, about [2.9].

全球平均一下，大约是1.9倍。

So we're going to have 18 billion units of consumption.

这样我们就有了180亿单位的消耗。

Who have you heard talking lately

你听谁最近在说

that's said we have to triple production

我们一定要将食品和服务的产能

of goods and services?

增长三倍？

But that's what the math says.

但是算术上来讲就是这样的。

We're not going to be able to do that.

我们应付不了那样的情况。

We can get productivity up.

产能可以提升。

We can get efficiency up.

效率可以增加。

But we've also got to get consumption down.

但消耗也应该降低。

We need to use less

我们需要使用更少的资源

to make more.

来生产更多。

And then we need to use less again.

然后我们又要用得更少。

And then we need to consume less.

消耗得更少。

All of those things are part of that equation.

所有这些都是等式的一部分。

But it basically raises a fundamental question:

但这就带出一个最根本的问题：

should consumers have a choice

消费者是否应该有

about sustainability, about sustainable products?

对可持续性以及可持续商品的选择权？

Should you be able to buy a product that's sustainable

当一件可持续的产品紧挨着另一件不可持续的产品，

sitting next to one that isn't,

你是否能自觉选择去购买那件可持续的产品？

or should all the products on the shelf be sustainable?

或者所有架上的产品都应该是可持续的产品？

If they should all be sustainable on a finite planet,

如果在一个资源有限的星球上，它们应该全部都是可持续的产品，

how do you make that happen?

你怎么来实现它？

The average consumer takes 1.8 seconds in the U.S.

在美国普通消费者的平均每次购买东西的时间是1.8秒。

Okay, so let's be generous.

好，让我们宽松一点。

Let's say it's 3.5 seconds in Europe.

就假设欧洲的情况是3.5秒。

How do you evaluate all the scientific data

你要如何来评估关于一个产品的

around a product,

所有科学数据.

the data that's changing on a weekly, if not a daily, basis?

这是每周都在变动的数据，如果不是每天变的话?

How do you get informed?

你如何得知?

You don't.

没办法。

Here's a little question.

这里就有个问题。

From a greenhouse gas perspective,

从温室气体的角度来看，

is lamb produced in the U.K.

一只英国产的羊羔

better than lamb produced in New Zealand,

是否比新西兰产的羊羔冷冻后运到

frozen and shipped to the U.K.?

英国更好？

Is a bad feeder lot operation for beef

一个糟糕的饲养牛场的操作

better or worse than

相比一个糟糕的放牧养牛操作

a bad grazing operation for beef?

是更好还是更差？

Do organic potatoes

有机土豆

actually have fewer toxic chemicals

相比起传统土豆真的就

used to produce them

在生产的过程中使用更少的

than conventional potatoes?

有毒化学物质来生产吗？

In every single case,

在每一个单独的案例中

the answer is "it depends."

答案总是“看情况”。

It depends on who produced it and how,

在每一个案例中都要看，

in every single instance.

是哪家生产的以及如何生产。

And there are many others.

当然还有很多别的例子。

How is a consumer going to walk through this minefield?

一个消费者要如何来跨过这个雷区？

They're not.

他们不会的。

They may have a lot of opinions about it,

他们可能会对此有很多看法，

but they're not going to be terribly informed.

但他们不会得到很多的信息。

Sustainability has got to be a pre-competitive issue.

可持续必须是一个竞争前的问题。

It's got to be something we all care about.

这一定是我们所有人都关心的事情。

And we need collusion.

我们需要共同谋划。

We need groups to work together that never have.

我们需要前所未有的集团与集团之间的合作。

We need Cargill to work with Bunge.

嘉吉要跟邦奇和作，

We need Coke to work with Pepsi.

可口要和百事合作，

We need Oxford to work with Cambridge.

牛津要与剑桥合作。

We need Greenpeace to work with WWF.

绿色和平组织也要跟世界野生动物基金合作。

Everybody's got to work together --

每个人都要同心协力－

China and the U.S.

中国与美国。

We need to begin to manage this planet

我们要开始管理这颗行星

as if our life depended on it,

就好像我们的生命都依赖于它，

because it does,

因为事实的确如此，

it fundamentally does.

根本上就是这样。

But we can't do everything.

但是我们也不是什么都能做。

Even if we get everybody working on it,

就算我们让所有人一起参与进来，

we've got to be strategic.

我们需要有策略。

We need to focus on the where,

我们需要关注“在哪里”，

the what and the who.

“做什么”以及“和谁”。

So, the where:

那么，在哪里：

We've identified 35 places globally that we need to work.

我们已经定位了全球35个我们需要展开工作的地方。

These are the places that are the richest in biodiversity

这些是生物多样性最最丰富的地方

and the most important from an ecosystem function point-of-view.

也是从生态系统功能角度来讲最重要的。

We have to work in these places.

我们一定要在这些地方开展工作。

We have to save these places if we want a chance in hell

如果我们的的确确想要拯救这些我们所知的生物多样性，

of preserving biodiversity as we know it.

我们必须要拯救这些地方。

We looked at the threats to these places.

我们观察了对这些地方的威胁。

These are the 15 commodities

有15种商品的开发过程

that fundamentally pose the biggest threats

严重威胁着

to these places

这些地方。

because of deforestation,

因为森林采伐，

soil loss, water use, pesticide use,

土地流失，水源利用，杀虫剂的使用，

over-fishing, etc.

以及过度捕捞等等。

So we've got 35 places,

所以我们有35个地方

we've got 15 priority commodities,

以及15种主要主要商品，

who do we work with

我们与谁合作

to change the way those commodities are produced?

来改变这些商品的生产方式呢？

Are we going to work with 6.9 billion consumers?

是要跟69亿消费者吗？

Let's see, that's about 7,000 languages,

让我们来看一下，他们大概讲着7000种语言，

350 major languages --

350种主要语言

a lot of work there.

那可是非常大的工作量。

I don't see anybody actually being able

我并不认为任何人可以

to do that very effectively.

有效率的来那样做。

Are we going to work with 1.5 billion producers?

我们要和15亿的生产者合作吗？

Again, a daunting task.

一样，令人却步的任务。

There must be a better way.

一定要有更好的办法。

300 to 500 companies

300至500家公司

control 70 percent or more

控制着70％或更多产品，

of the trade of each of the 15 commodities

这些产品就是我们所鉴别出的15种

that we've identified as the most significant.

最重要的贸易商品。

If we work with those, if we change those companies

如果与这些公司合作，如果我们可以改变这些公司

and the way they do business,

和他们的经营方式，

then the rest will happen automatically.

剩下的就水到渠成。

So, we went through our 15 commodities.

所以我们研究了这我们所列出的15种商品。

This is nine of them.

这是其中的9种。

We lined them up side-by-side,

我们将它们挨个排对，

and we put the names of the companies that work

同时也将在经营这些商品的公司名字

on each of those.

放上去。

And if you go through the first 25 or 30 names

然后当你看到经营每种商品的公司

of each of the commodities,

最开头的25到30个名字，

what you begin to see is,

你开始发现了

gosh, there's Cargill here, there's Cargill there,

天哪，这里有嘉吉，那里也有嘉吉，

there's Cargill everywhere.

到处都是嘉吉。

In fact, these names start coming up over and over again.

事实上，这些名字不断的重复。

So we did the analysis again a slightly different way.

所以我们用稍微不同的方法重新分析了一遍。

We said: if we take the top hundred companies,

我们假设：如果我们拿这前一百名的公司来看，

what percentage

在所有这15种商品上

of all 15 commodities

他们有接触，购买或者销售

do they touch, buy or sell?

的百分比是多少？

And what we found is it's 25 percent.

我们所发现的是25％的比例。

So 100 companies

那就是100家公司

control 25 percent of the trade

控制着这行星上

of all 15 of the most significant

15种最重要的商品

commodities on the planet.

25％的交易量。

We can get our arms around a hundred companies.

我们能够围绕这100家公司来展开工作。

A hundred companies, we can work with.

100家公司，我们能应付过来。

Why is 25 percent important?

为什么这25％这么重要？

Because if these companies demand sustainable products,

因为如果这些公司要求可持续的产品，

they'll pull 40 to 50 percent of production.

他们会拉动40%到50%的生产。

Companies can push producers

公司推动生产商

faster than consumers can.

可比消费者更快多了。

By companies asking for this,

通过公司这样的要求

we can leverage production so much faster

相较于等着消费者来做改变

than by waiting for consumers to do it.

更快地促进了生产方式转变。

After 40 years, the global organic movement

40年之后，全球有机运动

has achieved 0.7 of one percent

实现了百分之0.7的

of global food.

全球食品有机化。

We can't wait that long.

我们等不了这么久。

We don't have that kind of time.

我们没有太多时间。

We need change

我们需要加速

that's going to accelerate.

可持续性转变。

Even working with individual companies

即使与单独的公司合作

is not probably going to get us there.

也不大可能让我们达成目标

We need to begin to work with industries.

我们需要与整个行业合作。

So we've started roundtables

所以我们发起了

where we bring together the entire value chain,

聚集了整条价值链的圆桌会议，

from producers

从生产商，

all the way to the retailers and brands.

一路下来到零售商和各大品牌。

We bring in civil society, we bring in NGOs,

我们也带进民间团体和非政府组织，

we bring in researchers and scientists

我们也带进研究人员和科学家

to have an informed discussion --

以确保有一个信息充分的交流－

sometimes a battle royale --

有时候像一场大逃杀－

to figure out what are the key impacts

来指明这些产品的

of these products,

主要影响是什么，

what is a global benchmark,

什么是一个全球标准，

what's an acceptable impact,

什么是可以接受的影响，

and design standards around that.

并且围绕这些来制定标准。

It's not all fun and games.

这过程并不都是很有趣。

In salmon aquaculture,

六年前，

we kicked off a roundtable

我们在鲑鱼水产业中

almost six years ago.

开展了一个圆桌会议。

Eight entities came to the table.

8个实体公司加入。

We eventually got, I think, 60 percent

最终我们邀请到了全球60％

of global production at the table

的生产商以及25％的需求商

and 25 percent of demand at the table.

来到会议桌前。

Three of the original eight entities were suing each other.

在这之前8家中的三家在互相起诉。

And yet, next week, we launch

然而就在下周，我们将启动

globally verified, vetted and certified

全球范围对鲑鱼水产业

standards for salmon aquaculture.

验证，审核以及认证的标准。

It can happen.

这是可以实现的。

(Applause)

（掌声）

So what brings

那是什么将

the different entities to the table?

这些不同的企业带到桌边？

It's risk and demand.

是风险和需求。

For the big companies, it's reputational risk,

对于大企业，有它的声誉风险，

but more importantly,

但更重要的是，

they don't care what the price of commodities is.

他们无所谓商品的价格。

If they don't have commodities, they don't have a business.

如果他们没有商品，就没生意做了。

They care about availability,

他们关心的是可利用性，

so the big risk for them is not having product at all.

对他们来说最大的风险就是没有产品了。

For the producers,

对于生产商来说，

if a buyer wants to buy something produced a certain way,

如果购买者对产品有特定的要求，

that's what brings them to the table.

这就是他们要来的原因。

So it's the demand that brings them to the table.

所以是需求将他们聚拢到会议桌边。

The good news is

好消息是

we identified a hundred companies two years ago.

两年前我们认定了一百家企业。

In the last 18 months, we've signed agreements

过去的18个月里，

with 40 of those hundred companies

我们和100家中的40家签订了协议

to begin to work with them on their supply chain.

并开始和他们的供应链合作。

And in the next 18 months,

在未来的18个月里，

we will have signed up to work with another 40,

我们会与另外的40家企业签协议，

and we think we'll get those signed as well.

我们认为我们也会成功的签下这些。

Now what we're doing is bringing the CEOs

现在我们所做的是邀请

of these 80 companies together

所有这80家公司的主管们

to help twist the arms of the final 20,

来一起努力鼓动最后的20家

to bring them to the table,

加入进来。

because they don't like NGOs, they've never worked with NGOs,

因为他们不喜欢非政府组织，他们从未和非政府组织合作过，

they're concerned about this, they're concerned about that,

他们担心这个担心那个，

but we all need to be in this together.

但是我们一定要一起处理这个问题。

So we're pulling out all the stops.

我们正在竭尽所能使圆桌会议谈判下去。

We're using whatever leverage we have to bring them to the table.

我们正在用一切手段促使他们来到谈判桌前。

One company we're working with that's begun --

一家我们从一开始就在做工作的公司

in baby steps, perhaps --

在最初始的阶段可能是－

but has begun this journey on sustainability is Cargill.

但已经开始踏上这条可持续性发展道路的就是嘉吉公司。

They've funded research that shows

他们所资助的研究显示

that we can double global palm oil production

在未来的20年里我们可以一棵棕榈树都不砍就

without cutting a single tree in the next 20 years,

将全球棕榈油产量翻一翻，

and do it all in Borneo alone

而且这全部只在婆罗洲种植，

by planting on land that's already degraded.

在那些早已经退化的的土地上可再种植。

The study shows that the highest net present value

这项研究显示棕榈油

for palm oil

最高的净现值

is on land that's been degraded.

是在退化的土地上产生的。

They're also undertaking a study to look at

他们也正着手另一项关于

all of their supplies of palm oil

他们的棕榈油供应的研究

to see if they could be certified

以确认是否他们能通过认证

and what they would need to change in order to become third-party certified

以及他们需要做什么样的改变能让他们在一个可靠的认证方案下

under a credible certification program.

通过第三方认证。

Why is Cargill important?

为什么嘉吉公司这么重要？

Because Cargill has 20 to 25 percent

因为嘉吉拥有全球20％到25％的

of global palm oil.

棕榈油。

If Cargill makes a decision,

如果嘉吉做了可持续性发展决定，

the entire palm oil industry moves,

整个棕榈油行业都要变动，

or at least 40 or 50 percent of it.

或者至少40％到50的变化。

That's not insignificant.

那可不是一个微不足道的比例。

More importantly, Cargill and one other company

更重要的是，嘉吉和另一家公司

ship 50 percent of the palm oil

占据了一半

that goes to China.

卖向中国市场的棕榈油。

We don't have to change the way

我们不用改变任何一家中国公司

a single Chinese company works

的运作方式，

if we get Cargill to only send

假如让嘉吉只卖

sustainable palm oil to China.

可持续性的棕榈油给中国。

It's a pre-competitive issue.

这是一个“竞争前”议题。

All the palm oil going there is good.

所有送去的棕榈油都是可持续性的。

Buy it.

买吧。

Mars is also on a similar journey.

玛氏也在经历一个类似的状况。

Now most people understand that Mars is a chocolate company,

现在大部分的人都认可玛氏是一个巧克力公司。

but Mars has made sustainability pledges

但玛氏已经做出关于可持续的承诺，

to buy only certified product for all of its seafood.

只购买经过认证的产品来加工它所有的海产食品。

It turns out Mars buys more seafood than Walmart

原来玛氏所购买的海产食品比沃尔玛还要多

because of pet food.

因为它生产宠物食品。

But they're doing some really interesting things around chocolate,

但是他们正在做一些关于巧克力的研究，

and it all comes from the fact

而这一切都是因为

that Mars wants to be in business in the future.

玛氏想要在未来扩大它的业务。

And what they see is that they need to

他们认为他们需要

improve chocolate production.

改善巧克力的产能。

On any given plantation,

在任何的种植场里，

20 percent of the trees produce 80 percent of the crop,

20％的树产出了80％的产量，

so Mars is looking at the genome,

所以玛氏把目光对准基因组，

they're sequencing the genome of the cocoa plant.

他们在将可可树的基因进行排序。

They're doing it with IBM and the USDA,

他们正和IBM以及美国农业部合作，

and they're putting it in the public domain

并向公众领域开放该项目，

because they want everybody to have access to this data,

他们希望所有人都能接触到这些数据，

because they want everybody to help them

因为他们希望所有人都能来帮一把

make cocoa more productive and more sustainable.

将可可变得更高产更可持续。

What they've realized

他们所发现的是

is that if they can identify the traits

如果可以鉴别出

on productivity and drought tolerance,

决定产量及耐旱度的性状，

they can produce 320 percent as much cocoa

他们可以用40％的土地

on 40 percent of the land.

生产出320％的可可。

The rest of the land can be used for something else.

多出来的土地可以留作他用。

It's more with less and less again.

又是一个生产更多消耗更少的例子。

That's what the future has got to be,

这才是未来必经之路，

and putting it in the public domain is smart.

把这计划向公共领域开放是明智的。

They don't want to be an I.P. company; they want to be a chocolate company,

他们不想成为一个知识产权公司，他们想做一家巧克力公司，

but they want to be a chocolate company forever.

而且是想永远做一家巧克力公司。

Now, the price of food, many people complain about,

现在很多人抱怨食品的价格，

but in fact, the price of food is going down,

但事实上食品价格一直在持续地降低，

and that's odd because in fact,

那是蛮怪的，因为事实上，

consumers are not paying for the true cost of food.

消费者们并没有在支付食品的真正成本。

If you take a look just at water,

如果你看下用水的情况

what we see is that,

我们所发现的是，

with four very common products,

在4种非常普遍的产品中，

you look at how much a farmer produced to make those products,

看一下每个农民要生产多少来制造这些产品，

and then you look at how much water input was put into them,

再看需要多少水来投入生产，

and then you look at what the farmer was paid.

然后看下农民拿多少钱，

If you divide the amount of water

如果把用水量

into what the farmer was paid,

除一下农民收入，

the farmer didn't receive enough money

农民拿的钱还不够

to pay a decent price for water in any of those commodities.

来为这些商品生产过程中的用水支付一个合适的价钱。

That is an externality by definition.

那就是一个标准的外部经济效益。

This is the subsidy from nature.

这是从大自然那拿的津贴。

Coca-Cola, they've worked a lot on water,

可口可乐，他们生产要用很多水，

but right now, they're entering into 17-year contracts

现在，他们正和土耳其的种植者签订

with growers in Turkey

17年的协议

to sell juice into Europe,

来把果汁出售到欧洲，

and they're doing that because they want to have a product

他们这样做是因为他们想要有一个

that's closer to the European market.

比较接近欧洲市场的产品。

But they're not just buying the juice;

但他们不仅仅买走果汁；

they're also buying the carbon in the trees

也买走了树里的碳

to offset the shipment costs associated with carbon

来抵消将产品送进欧洲时

to get the product into Europe.

与碳有关的运输成本。

There's carbon that's being bought with sugar,

有和糖，咖啡，牛肉一同

with coffee, with beef.

被买去的碳。

This is called bundling. It's bringing those externalities

这就叫捆绑销售，它将这些外部经济效益

back into the price of the commodity.

带入了这商品的价格中。

We need to take what we've learned in private, voluntary standards

我们需要把从世界上最好的生产者

of what the best producers in the world are doing

那所了解到个人，自发的标准

and use that to inform government regulation,

用来引导政府监管，

so we can shift the entire performance curve.

我们可以迁移整个效益曲线。

We can't just focus on identifying the best;

我们不能仅仅盯着最好的；

we've got to move the rest.

也一定要带动其他的。

The issue isn't what to think, it's how to think.

现在不是该想什么，而是怎么去想的问题。

These companies have begun to think differently.

这些公司已经开始改变思路了。

They're on a journey; there's no turning back.

他们踏上了这条可持续性发展道路，就再也不能退缩了。

We're all on that same journey with them.

我们也在相同的道路上。

We have to really begin to change

我们一定要开始改变

the way we think about everything.

我们对所有事情的看法。

Whatever was sustainable on a planet of six billion

能够支持地球上有60亿人口的做法

is not going to be sustainable on a planet with nine.

在90亿人口的情况下是行不通的。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）