Jason Clay: How big brands can help save biodiversity

譯者: Ching-Yi Wu 審譯者: Adrienne Lin

I grew up on a small farm in Missouri.

我成長於密蘇里州的一個小農場

We lived on less than a dollar a day

大概有15年的時間

for about 15 years.

我們一天的花費少於一塊美金

I got a scholarship, went to university,

我拿到獎學金，去上大學

studied international agriculture, studied anthropology,

學習國際農業學跟人類學

and decided I was going to give back.

我決定要回饋

I was going to work with small farmers.

我想跟小農們一起工作

I was going to help alleviate poverty.

想幫助消滅貧窮

I was going to work on international development,

想致力於國際發展

and then I took a turn

然而，最後我轉了個彎

and ended up here.

落腳於此

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

不過，如果你拿到博士學位，不想教書

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

不見得會像我這樣

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

這是個人選擇。你也許到頭來去開計程車

You could be in New York.

也許會待在紐約

What I found was,

而我則是

I started working with refugees and famine victims --

開始跟難民及饑民一起工作

small farmers, all, or nearly all --

包括小農，及其他所有

who had been dispossessed and displaced.

一無所有無家可歸的人

Now, what I'd been trained to do

我所接受的訓練

was methodological research on such people.

為研究這些人的方法學

So I did it: I found out how many women

我曾研究有多少女性

had been raped en route to these camps.

在前往難民營的途上被強暴

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

有多少人坐過牢

how many family members had been killed.

多少家族成員被殺

I assessed how long they were going to stay

分析這些人將待多久

and how much it would take to feed them.

而我們需要多少食物才能餵飽他們

And I got really good at predicting

這讓我變得非常擅長於預測

how many body bags you would need

我們將需要多少屍袋

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

來處理將死於難民營中的人

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

這是神的工作，而不是我的

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

這不是我該做的事

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

在1988年，我去了死之華合唱團

in 1988.

在雨林辦的慈善演唱會

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

我在那遇到相片左邊的這位仁兄

His name was Ben.

他叫做Ben

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

他問：「我該怎麼做，才能拯救雨林呢？」

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

我說：「這個嘛，Ben，你是做什麼的？」

"I make ice cream."

「我做冰淇淋。」

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

我說：「嗯，你一定得做個

a rainforest ice cream.

雨林口味的冰淇淋

And you've got to use nuts from the rainforests

用雨林特產的堅果

to show that forests are worth more as forests

來展現雨林的價值

than they are as pasture."

不僅在它的生產能力而已。」

He said, "Okay."

他說：「好。」

Within a year,

一年內

Rainforest Crunch was on the shelves.

「雨林堅果」上架了

It was a great success.

產品空前的成功

We did our first million-dollars-worth of trade

我們靠著每月貸款，在最後一周銷貨

by buying on 30 days and selling on 21.

賺進我們第一個一百萬的交易

That gets your adrenaline going.

這真是非常刺激

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

接著，因為此時我們有能力還款

because we were credit-worthy at that point.

我們貸了450萬美金

We had 15 to 20, maybe 22 percent

攻下15%到20%，也許是22%

of the global Brazil-nut market.

的全球巴西豆市場

We paid two to three times more than anybody else.

我們比別的買家出價高出兩三倍

Everybody else raised their prices to the gatherers of Brazil nuts

其他人也跟進出高價

because we would buy it otherwise.

不然就會被我們買走

A great success.

這策略大為成功

50 companies signed up, 200 products came out,

有五十間公司簽約合作，推出兩百項產品

generated 100 million in sales.

賺進一億美金的利潤

It failed.

然而我們到底還是失敗了

Why did it fail?

為什麼呢？

Because the people who were gathering Brazil nuts

因為採收巴西豆的人

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

跟砍伐雨林的人不同

And the people who made money from Brazil nuts

而靠著巴西豆賺錢的人

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

也跟靠砍雨林賺錢的人不同

We were attacking the wrong driver.

所以，我們找錯對象了

We needed to be working on beef.

我們得解決牛肉的問題

We needed to be working on lumber.

我們得解決伐木的問題

We needed to be working on soy --

我們得解決黃豆的問題

things that we were not focused on.

這些我們沒有注意到的問題

So let's go back to Sudan.

回到蘇丹

I often talk to refugees:

我常跟難民們說

"Why was it that the West didn't realize

西方國家的人並不明白

that famines are caused by policies and politics,

饑荒其實是政治和政策問題

not by weather?"

而不是氣候問題

And this farmer said to me, one day,

有天，有個農夫跟我提了個

something that was very profound.

相當卓越的觀點

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

他說：「你不能叫醒一個正在假寐的人。」

(Laughter)

（笑）

Okay. Fast forward.

更進一步來說

We live on a planet.

我們住在這個星球上

There's just one of them.

眾多星球裡獨一無二的一個

We've got to wake up to the fact

我們得明白這個事實：

that we don't have any more

除了這資源有限的地球外

and that this is a finite planet.

我們沒有別的星球了

We know the limits of the resources we have.

我們得明白，我們手上的資源有限

We may be able to use them differently.

我們也許能以不同方式使用資源

We may have some innovative, new ideas.

就算我們有新想法，創造新資源

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

但大致來說，資源就是這麼多

There's no more of it.

沒別的了

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

有個基礎公式是我們無可避免：

Population times consumption

人口數跟資源消耗的乘積

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

必須與這星球的資源量有相關性

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

而目前，這兩者並不相當

Our work shows that we're living

研究顯示，我們消耗的資源

at about 1.3 planets.

為1.3倍個地球

Since 1990,

從1990年起

we crossed the line

我們就越過那條

of being in a sustainable relationship to the planet.

跟這個星球維持永續關係的線

Now we're at 1.3.

資源消耗量是地球的1.3倍

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

如果我們是農夫，我們已在殺雞取卵

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

若是銀行家，我們本金已開始虧損，而非靠利息過日子

This is where we stand today.

這是我們的現況

A lot of people like to point

有很多人總是把問題

to some place else as the cause of the problem.

歸咎於其他的徵結

It's always population growth.

像是人口成長

Population growth's important,

人口成長是重要原因

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

但每個人的消耗量也很重要

So when the average American

當美國人生活的

consumes 43 times as much

平均消耗量為

as the average African,

非洲人的43倍時

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

消耗的確是個問題

It's not just about population,

不光是人口數

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

也不光是別人的問題，問題是大家的

But it's not just about people;

這也不光是人的問題

it's about lifestyles.

問題在於生活方式

There's very good evidence --

有證據顯示─

again, we don't necessarily have

關於這點，我們還沒有

a peer-reviewed methodology

經同儕審查的調查方法

that's bulletproof yet --

來駁回反對意見─

but there's very good evidence

但是，有相當不錯的證據顯示

that the average cat in Europe

歐洲的貓其一生

has a larger environmental footprint in its lifetime

留下的環境足跡

than the average African.

比其非洲同類高

You think that's not an issue going forward?

你還認為這不是進行中的問題嗎？

You think that's not a question

你還認為這樣的問題不足以讓我們質疑

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

我們該如何使用地球資源嗎？

Let's go back and visit our equation.

回到之前提到的公式

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

在2000年，地球上有60億人口

They were consuming what they were consuming --

他們消費的消費品恆定

let's say one unit of consumption each.

以每個人的消費量為一單位

We have six billion units of consumption.

全世界的消費量則為60億單位

By 2050,

在2050年

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

所有的科學家都同意，人口數將來到90億大關

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

而此時的消費量將為現在的兩倍

scientists, again, agree --

科學家們也同意這點

because income is going to grow in developing countries

因為開發中國家的人民收入將為

five times what it is today --

今日的五倍

on global average, about [2.9].

全球平均消費量達今日的3倍

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

這讓全球總消費為180億個消費單位

Who have you heard talking lately

誰最近聽過一個演講告訴你

that's said we have to triple production

我們的食物產量和服務量

of goods and services?

必須增加三倍？

But that's what the math says.

這僅只是數學而已

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

我們沒辦法辦到

We can get productivity up.

我們能夠增加食物產量

We can get efficiency up.

我們可以增加產出效率

But we've also got to get consumption down.

但其實我們應該減少消費量

We need to use less

必須用更少的

to make more.

原料來生產

And then we need to use less again.

我們使用的資源得比今日少

And then we need to consume less.

我們得消費得更少

All of those things are part of that equation.

這些全是那個公式的一部分

But it basically raises a fundamental question:

然而，伴隨而來的是一個根本問題：

should consumers have a choice

消費者有永續發展、

about sustainability, about sustainable products?

永續生存的相關產品可選擇嗎？

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

架上擺了永續、不永續的兩種產品時，

sitting next to one that isn't,

你會選擇永續商品嗎？

or should all the products on the shelf be sustainable?

或是架上所有的商品都得是永續商品？

If they should all be sustainable on a finite planet,

在這個資源有限的地球上，該怎麼做

how do you make that happen?

才能讓所有商品都是永續商品？

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

在美國，消費者花1.8秒決定買什麼

Okay, so let's be generous.

標準放寬一點

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

假設歐洲人花3.5秒做決定

How do you evaluate all the scientific data

我們該怎麼評估一項產品的

around a product,

所有科學資訊

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

產品數據每週、甚至是每日變動

How do you get informed?

我們該怎麼獲得這樣的資料呢？

You don't.

這是做不到的

Here's a little question.

還有個小問題

From a greenhouse gas perspective,

從溫室氣體排放的角度來說

is lamb produced in the U.K.

在英國養羊

better than lamb produced in New Zealand,

會比在紐西蘭養

frozen and shipped to the U.K.?

最後再冷凍運送到英國好嗎？

Is a bad feeder lot operation for beef

一個餵牛吃飼料的糟糕農場

better or worse than

和一個餵牛吃草的糟糕農場相比

a bad grazing operation for beef?

誰比較好？

Do organic potatoes

有機馬鈴薯的生產過程

actually have fewer toxic chemicals

會比傳統種植方式

used to produce them

使用更少的

than conventional potatoes?

有毒化學物嗎？

In every single case,

這些問題的答案

the answer is "it depends."

都是「看情況」

It depends on who produced it and how,

依照作物是由誰種出、如何種出

in every single instance.

答案就不同

And there are many others.

還有很多其他的情況

How is a consumer going to walk through this minefield?

像是：消費者如何避開這些地雷？

They're not.

才不呢

They may have a lot of opinions about it,

消費者或許有很多選擇

but they're not going to be terribly informed.

可是他們得到的訊息卻嚴重不足

Sustainability has got to be a pre-competitive issue.

永續發展得是個異業結盟的議題

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

這得是我們所有人共同關心的議題

And we need collusion.

我們需要串謀

We need groups to work together that never have.

讓從未合作過的廠商結盟

We need Cargill to work with Bunge.

像是食品業的Cargill跟Bunge

We need Coke to work with Pepsi.

飲料業的可口可樂跟百事可樂

We need Oxford to work with Cambridge.

互為死對頭的劍橋跟牛津大學

We need Greenpeace to work with WWF.

綠色和平組織(環保團體)跟世界自然基金會

Everybody's got to work together --

所有的人都必須合作

China and the U.S.

包括中國和美國

We need to begin to manage this planet

我們得開始處理地球的問題

as if our life depended on it,

因為這是我們賴以維生的星球

because it does,

事情就是這樣

it fundamentally does.

從根本來說就是這樣

But we can't do everything.

但是我們也不是什麼都攬在身上

Even if we get everybody working on it,

即使我們說服所有人共同解決問題

we've got to be strategic.

我們必須有策略

We need to focus on the where,

我們必須專注於問題在哪、

the what and the who.

問題是什麼、還有由誰來解決

So, the where:

關於「問題在哪」這點：

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

我們已知全球有35個地點需要保護

These are the places that are the richest in biodiversity

這些都是生物多樣性最豐富、

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

且對於生態系統功能很重要的地方

We have to work in these places.

我們得解決這些地點的問題

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

眾所周知，我們得保護這些地點

of preserving biodiversity as we know it.

迫切希望有機會拯救當地的生物多樣性

We looked at the threats to these places.

讓我們來看看是哪些因素威脅其環境：

These are the 15 commodities

圖上的15個商品

that fundamentally pose the biggest threats

根本上是這些地區最大的威脅

to these places

因為其製程造成的

because of deforestation,

去雨林化、土壤流失、

soil loss, water use, pesticide use,

灌溉、殺蟲劑的使用

over-fishing, etc.

跟過漁等

So we've got 35 places,

所以，我們有35個危險區域、

we've got 15 priority commodities,

15個商品

who do we work with

我們該找誰一起來

to change the way those commodities are produced?

改變我們製造這些商品的流程？

Are we going to work with 6.9 billion consumers?

我們需要69億名消費者的合作嗎？

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

這牽涉到7000種語言

350 major languages --

350種主要語言

a lot of work there.

實行起來很費力

I don't see anybody actually being able

我不知道有誰真能

to do that very effectively.

有效率的達成這件事

Are we going to work with 1.5 billion producers?

還是，我們跟15億生產者合作呢？

Again, a daunting task.

一樣，似乎是個不可能的任務

There must be a better way.

應該有更好的方法

300 to 500 companies

有300到500家公司

control 70 percent or more

控制這15項商品

of the trade of each of the 15 commodities

七成以上的交易

that we've identified as the most significant.

我們認為這些公司造成的影響最為顯著

If we work with those, if we change those companies

如果我們跟他們合作，改變這些公司

and the way they do business,

跟公司從商的模式

then the rest will happen automatically.

剩下的會自動自發改變

So, we went through our 15 commodities.

一項一項研究這15項商品

This is nine of them.

其中有9個

We lined them up side-by-side,

我們擺在一起看

and we put the names of the companies that work

註明是哪些公司

on each of those.

製造它們的

And if you go through the first 25 or 30 names

當你看了25-30家

of each of the commodities,

這些商品的製造者

what you begin to see is,

你會發現

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

欸！除了Cargill，還是Cargill

there's Cargill everywhere.

這些東西全跟Cargill有關

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

因為這些公司不斷出現在名單上

So we did the analysis again a slightly different way.

我們用了另一個稍微不一樣的方法分析：

We said: if we take the top hundred companies,

名單上頭100個公司裡

what percentage

有多少比例

of all 15 commodities

包辦這15項商品的

do they touch, buy or sell?

經手、購買跟轉賣？

And what we found is it's 25 percent.

約為25%

So 100 companies

所以，這100個公司

control 25 percent of the trade

控制了這星球

of all 15 of the most significant

15個最重要的商品

commodities on the planet.

25%的交易

We can get our arms around a hundred companies.

我們可以張開雙手擁抱這100間公司

A hundred companies, we can work with.

跟這100間公司合作

Why is 25 percent important?

為什麼這25%的交易重要？

Because if these companies demand sustainable products,

因為如果這些公司要求產品永續生產

they'll pull 40 to 50 percent of production.

就會有40%到50%的產品為綠色商品

Companies can push producers

生產者推動綠色消費

faster than consumers can.

會比消費者自發快

By companies asking for this,

當生產者有這樣的要求

we can leverage production so much faster

矯正生產過程的缺失

than by waiting for consumers to do it.

會比等待消費者主動消費來的更快

After 40 years, the global organic movement

全球的有機食物運動花了40年

has achieved 0.7 of one percent

也只讓有機食物佔

of global food.

全球食物0.7%的比重

We can't wait that long.

我們沒辦法等這麼久了

We don't have that kind of time.

我們沒有這樣的時間

We need change

我們需要

that's going to accelerate.

加速度的改變

Even working with individual companies

即使跟每一個公司合作

is not probably going to get us there.

或許無法讓我們達成目標

We need to begin to work with industries.

我們還是得開始跟產業合作

So we've started roundtables

因此我們召開圓桌會議

where we bring together the entire value chain,

聚集產業鏈中

from producers

所有的生產者

all the way to the retailers and brands.

品牌廠商跟經銷商

We bring in civil society, we bring in NGOs,

我們讓公民團體、非政府組織、

we bring in researchers and scientists

學者、科學家、

to have an informed discussion --

跟產業界一起進行討論

sometimes a battle royale --

─過程有時跟小說《大逃殺》很像─

to figure out what are the key impacts

來找出這些產品對環境的

of these products,

主要衝擊為何

what is a global benchmark,

全球的標準為何

what's an acceptable impact,

可接受的環境衝擊為何

and design standards around that.

並據此設計評量標準

It's not all fun and games.

這過程一點也不有趣，更不是遊戲

In salmon aquaculture,

針對鮭魚養殖業

we kicked off a roundtable

約在6年前

almost six years ago.

我們開了圓桌會議

Eight entities came to the table.

8個團體出席

We eventually got, I think, 60 percent

我想，最後我們集合了這個產業

of global production at the table

生產端的60%

and 25 percent of demand at the table.

跟消費端的25%

Three of the original eight entities were suing each other.

這8個團體中的3個當時正互相打官司

And yet, next week, we launch

然而一週後，我們還是推動了

globally verified, vetted and certified

全球皆同意、一體適用及認證的

standards for salmon aquaculture.

鮭魚養殖標準

It can happen.

這是可以辦到的

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So what brings

是什麼讓這8個立場不同的團體

the different entities to the table?

都出現在會議上呢？

It's risk and demand.

這其中有許多風險跟要求

For the big companies, it's reputational risk,

對大公司而言，可能會賠上商譽

but more importantly,

但更重要的

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

他們不在乎商品的價錢

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

如果沒有商品，就沒有交易

They care about availability,

所以他們在乎的是商品的取得

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

而對他們來說，最大的風險在於沒有產品

For the producers,

對製造商來說

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

消費者希望購買以某些方式生產的產品

that's what brings them to the table.

是讓這些人來開會的動力

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

是消費者的需求帶他們上會議桌

The good news is

好消息是

we identified a hundred companies two years ago.

根據兩年前調查選出的100間公司中

In the last 18 months, we've signed agreements

在過去18個月裡，有40家

with 40 of those hundred companies

跟我們簽署同意書

to begin to work with them on their supply chain.

願意跟我們合作改善供應鏈

And in the next 18 months,

在未來的18個月

we will have signed up to work with another 40,

我們將努力說服其他40家公司簽署

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

而我們認為，取得他們的同意書是沒問題的

Now what we're doing is bringing the CEOs

我們正努力讓這80間

of these 80 companies together

大企業的執行長合作

to help twist the arms of the final 20,

協助改變最後20家公司的觀念

to bring them to the table,

讓他們也願意參與這個會議

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

因為這些公司不喜歡，也從未跟非政府組織合作

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

擔心這個，擔心那個

but we all need to be in this together.

但我們需要大家的共同合作

So we're pulling out all the stops.

所以我們得移除所有障礙

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

借力使力讓這些公司加入我們的行列

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

其中一間剛開始跟我們合作的公司

in baby steps, perhaps --

是也許還在蹣跚學步

but has begun this journey on sustainability is Cargill.

但已經走上製造永續商品旅程的Cargill

They've funded research that shows

其贊助的研究顯示

that we can double global palm oil production

未來20年，我們一棵樹都不需要砍

without cutting a single tree in the next 20 years,

就能讓全球棕櫚油的產量加倍

and do it all in Borneo alone

而且只要在婆羅洲

by planting on land that's already degraded.

已經荒蕪的地上種植棕櫚即可

The study shows that the highest net present value

研究顯示，棕櫚油淨產量

for palm oil

最高的地方

is on land that's been degraded.

為漠化區

They're also undertaking a study to look at

Cargill也正在研究

all of their supplies of palm oil

他們供應的所有棕櫚油

to see if they could be certified

可不可以得到認證

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

及為了通過有公信力的第三者評鑑機構認證

under a credible certification program.

他們得做出哪些改變

Why is Cargill important?

為什麼Cargill如此重要？

Because Cargill has 20 to 25 percent

因為這家公司的全球棕櫚油市占率

of global palm oil.

為20%到25%

If Cargill makes a decision,

當Cargill下定決心

the entire palm oil industry moves,

整個棕櫚油生產工業、

or at least 40 or 50 percent of it.

或至少40%到50%會跟著改變

That's not insignificant.

這就不是件小事了

More importantly, Cargill and one other company

更重要的，Cargill跟另一家公司

ship 50 percent of the palm oil

提供中國一半的

that goes to China.

進口棕櫚油

We don't have to change the way

我們不需要改變任何一家

a single Chinese company works

中國公司的生產方式

if we get Cargill to only send

只要我們讓Cargill將

sustainable palm oil to China.

以永續生產的棕櫚油輸入中國

It's a pre-competitive issue.

這種進入市場前的產品改變

All the palm oil going there is good.

所有在中國的棕櫚油將是好油

Buy it.

可以放心購買

Mars is also on a similar journey.

Mars也朝著同樣的方向前進

Now most people understand that Mars is a chocolate company,

大部分的人都知道Mars是一家巧克力公司

but Mars has made sustainability pledges

但是Mars在永續議題上承諾

to buy only certified product for all of its seafood.

他們只購買認證的海鮮為原料

It turns out Mars buys more seafood than Walmart

因為生產寵物飼料

because of pet food.

Mars採買的海鮮比沃爾瑪還多

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

但Mars也針對巧克力生產進行一些有意思的計畫

and it all comes from the fact

這是因為Mars希望

that Mars wants to be in business in the future.

他們未來在市場上仍有競爭力

And what they see is that they need to

Mars注意到，他們需要

improve chocolate production.

改進巧克力生產的過程

On any given plantation,

在任何一塊農地上

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

八成的可可豆只由兩成的可可樹生產

so Mars is looking at the genome,

於是Mars研究可可樹基因體

they're sequencing the genome of the cocoa plant.

為可可樹的基因定序

They're doing it with IBM and the USDA,

他們跟IBM和美國農業部合作

and they're putting it in the public domain

公開可可樹的基因序列

because they want everybody to have access to this data,

因為Mars希望所有人都能看到這些數據

because they want everybody to help them

讓大家都來幫助他們

make cocoa more productive and more sustainable.

使可可樹的產率提高，讓生產過程更永續

What they've realized

他們明白

is that if they can identify the traits

如果能夠找到

on productivity and drought tolerance,

產量高且耐旱的表型

they can produce 320 percent as much cocoa

就能在目前四成的農地上

on 40 percent of the land.

讓產率提高3.2倍

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

這樣剩下的農地就能做為他用

It's more with less and less again.

這更多的是關於省還要更省

That's what the future has got to be,

我們的未來必須要這樣

and putting it in the public domain is smart.

將資訊公開很高明

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

Mars不想當個智慧財產公司，他們想當個巧克力公司

but they want to be a chocolate company forever.

但他們更想當個永續的巧克力公司

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

當許多人抱怨食物的價格時

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

然而，怪的是，食物價格其實正在降低

and that's odd because in fact,

這是因為，事實上

consumers are not paying for the true cost of food.

消費者並沒有為食物真正的成本付出代價

If you take a look just at water,

以四種常見的產品而言

what we see is that,

當你去研究這些農產品

with four very common products,

水的使用，你會知道

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

農夫用多少原料來生產這些產品

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

我們知道農夫生產這些商品使用的水量

and then you look at what the farmer was paid.

也知道農夫的收入

If you divide the amount of water

將水量除以

into what the farmer was paid,

農夫的收入

the farmer didn't receive enough money

你會發現，農夫的收入不足以負擔

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

生產這些農產品時所需的水

That is an externality by definition.

這就是所謂的外部效應

This is the subsidy from nature.

即產品生產時，自然界付出的成本

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

可口可樂在水資源上下了許多工夫

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

現在，他們跟土耳其的農夫

with growers in Turkey

簽下一紙17年的合約

to sell juice into Europe,

以利在歐洲銷售他們的果汁

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

之所以這麼做，是因為他們希望

that's closer to the European market.

在接近歐洲市場處生產產品

But they're not just buying the juice;

如此一來，他們不僅只是買果汁

they're also buying the carbon in the trees

還省了將產品運送到歐洲時

to offset the shipment costs associated with carbon

燃燒樹木釋放的碳足跡

to get the product into Europe.

及其相關成本

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

在我們買糖、咖啡、牛肉時

with coffee, with beef.

都會有這樣的碳足跡

This is called bundling. It's bringing those externalities

藉著外部成本內部化

back into the price of the commodity.

商品價格將包含環境的外部成本

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

我們需要應用從世界最好的製造商那裡

of what the best producers in the world are doing

學來的私人或公益團體制定的標準

and use that to inform government regulation,

以型塑政府規範

so we can shift the entire performance curve.

改變整個生產曲線

We can't just focus on identifying the best;

我們不只得找出最好的產業

we've got to move the rest.

還得改變其他的產業

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

重點不在於思考目的，而在於過程

These companies have begun to think differently.

這些公司已經開始改變思考模式

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

他們走在改革的路上，沒有回頭的路

We're all on that same journey with them.

我們也在同一條船上

We have to really begin to change

我們得真正開始改變

the way we think about everything.

我們看待萬物的方式

Whatever was sustainable on a planet of six billion

能讓一個60億人口的星球永續發展的方式

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

在90億人口的星球上是不會有一樣的效果的

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）