Is there a role for carbon credits in a just transition to net zero? | TED Countdown Dilemma Series

譯者: Songzhilin Shi

Did you have a position on carbon credits coming into today?

您對今天的碳信用有立場嗎？

塔瑪拉·托爾斯·奧拉福林 （Tamara Toles O』Laughlin）：

Tamara Toles O'Laughlin: Yeah. No, the position is no.

嗯。不，立場是否定的。

John Kilani: There must be something important in carbon markets,

約翰·基拉尼 （John Kilani）： 碳市場中一定有重要的東西，

otherwise, people would have given up long ago.

否則，人們早就放棄了。

Nat Keohane: So I came in today thinking,

納特·基奧漢 （Nat Keohane）： 所以我今天來想，

as a tool, carbon markets, carbon credits can be really valuable

作為一種工具， 碳市場，碳信用額，

in creating the kind of economic incentives we need.

在創造我們需要的經濟激勵方面 真的很有價值。

Julio Friedmann: Today, the carbon markets have no supply,

儒勒·弗裏德曼 （Julio Friedmann）： 今天，碳市場沒有供應，

no demand, no transparency, no regulation.

沒有需求，沒有透明度，沒有監管。

Other than that, they're perfect.

除此以外，它們是完美的。

Donnel Baird: You buy a carbon offset from a forest

唐納·貝爾德 （Donnel Baird）： 你通過森林購買了碳補償額，

but now the forest has burned down

但現在森林被燒毀了，

or they were going to chop the tree down but they didn't, and then they did.

或者他們打算砍樹，但他們沒有砍， 結果最後又砍了。

Nili Gilbert: We know that we need carbon removals to scale dramatically.

尼利·吉爾伯特 （Nili Gilbert）：

我們知道， 我們需要碳清除量大幅增加。

Al Gore: Different points of view can add to the collective wisdom.

阿爾·戈爾（Al Gore）： 不同觀點可以為集體智慧添磚加瓦。

Inés Yábar: We'll work better if we work together.

伊內斯·亞巴爾（Inés Yábar）： 如果共同努力，我們會做得更好。

How do we generate those connections that together move us forward?

我們如何產生這些聯系 共同推動我們前進？

James Dyke: The concern that I’ve got about net zero,

詹姆斯·戴克（James Dyke）： 我對凈零排放的擔憂，

you're probably going to disagree about this,

你可能會不同意這一點，

it might be taking away some of the sense of urgency.

這可能會消除一些緊迫感。

JF: We can be optimistic or we can be pessimistic.

儒勒·弗裏德曼： 我們可以樂觀，也可以悲觀。

But the work looks the same.

但工作看起來是一樣的。

Is there anything that struck you about carbon credits

關於碳信用或碳市場，

or carbon markets that you want to talk about?

有什麽讓你 印象深刻的事情想談的嗎？

AG: Well, I'll wait until the session is over

阿爾·戈爾： 好吧，我會等到會議結束，

to give us some considered opinions on that.

再給一些深思熟慮的意見。

[TED Countdown Dilemma Series]

[TED Countdown 困境系列]

[Is there a role for carbon credits in the transition to a fair,]

[在向公平、凈零的未來過渡的 過程中，碳信用是否有作用？]

[net zero future?]

Lindsay Levin: Throughout the world,

林賽·萊文（Lindsay Levin）： 在世界各地，

we find ourselves faced with self-inflicted

我們發現自己面臨著自我造成的、

and interconnected problems

相互關聯的問題，

that challenge our social fabric,

這些問題挑戰著我們的社會結構、

our economic security,

我們的經濟安全，

and the very ability of the Earth to sustain us.

以及地球維持我們生存的能力。

We're certainly not short on ideas to address these problems.

我們當然不缺乏 解決這些問題的想法。

But we often get caught up in arguments against one another

但我們經常陷入彼此對立的爭論中，

vying for supremacy instead of deciding on a course of action.

爭奪霸權，而不是決定行動方案。

So how can we move forward?

那麽，我們如何才能向前邁進呢？

It begins by acknowledging the difference between choices and dilemmas.

首先要承認選擇和困境之間的區別。

Some decisions come down to choice.

有些決定歸結為選擇。

You weigh the alternatives, decide and move on.

你權衡各種選擇， 做出決定，然後繼續前進。

But often, complex situations need both/and thinking instead of either/or.

但通常情況下，復雜的情況 需要同時思考，而不是非此即彼。

They require us to hold competing values together

它們要求我們把 相互競爭的價值觀放在一起，

rather than make straightforward choices.

而不是做出直接的選擇。

We call these dilemmas.

我們稱這些為困境問題。

I'm Lindsay Levin, co-founder of TED Countdown.

我是林賽·萊文， TED Countdown 的聯合創始人。

And this is why we launched our Dilemma Series.

這就是我們推出 「困境系列」的原因。

To look at some of the thorniest issues in the climate space

著眼於氣候領域的 一些最棘手的問題，

and see how, through deep listening and collaboration,

看看如何通過深入傾聽和合作，

we find pathways forward.

找到前進的道路。

In our first Dilemma event,

在我們的第一個「困境」活動中，

we tackled the question

我們討論了這樣一個問題:

Is there a role for carbon credits in accelerating the transition

在過渡到一個公平的、凈零的 未來中，碳信用是否有作用？

to a fair net-zero world?

David Biello: First, let's start with some definitions.

大衛·比洛 （David Biello）： 首先，讓我們從一些定義開始。

A carbon credit is a tradable permit

碳信用額是一種可交易的許可，

that usually represents one ton of carbon,

通常代表一噸碳，

either not emitted or removed from the atmosphere.

要麽不排放， 或從大氣中去除。

Carbon offsetting is the practice of buying carbon credits

碳抵消是購買碳信用額

to compensate for carbon emissions generated elsewhere.

以補償其他地方 產生的碳排放的做法。

Carbon markets are where carbon credits are bought, sold and priced.

碳市場是購買、出售 和定價碳信用額的地方。

Net zero refers to a theoretical state

凈零排放是指一種理論狀態，

in which overall human-produced carbon emissions are equivalent to zero

其中人類產生的 碳排放總量等同於零，

because any ongoing emissions have been compensated

因為任何持續的排放 都已通過移除進行補償或抵消。

or offset by removals.

LL: We're going to take you on a journey.

林賽·萊文: 我們將帶你踏上一段旅程。

We'll explore why so many people have lost faith in how carbon markets

我們將探討為什麽 如此多的人對碳市場

and net-zero targets operate in practice.

和凈零目標的實際運作 失去信心。

We'll hear from people working in frontline communities

我們將聽取在一線社區工作的人們

to protect and restore nature and safeguard livelihoods.

對保護和恢復自然 以及保障生計的意見。

And to close, we'll talk about solutions.

最後，我們將討論解決方案。

We hope this film will speak to those working in sustainability and beyond.

我們希望這部影片能對那些致力於 可持續發展的人有所啟發。

Whether you're directly able to influence the supply

無論你是直接能夠影響 碳市場的供應方或需求方，

or demand side of carbon markets,

or you're just interested in how we solve the climate crisis,

還是你只是對 我們如何解決氣候危機感興趣，

these issues affect us all.

這些問題都會影響我們所有人。

Let's start by hearing about some of the promises and pitfalls

讓我們從 TED 的大衛·比洛

in a conversation between TED's David Biello

和碳市場觀察的吉爾斯·杜弗拉森 （Gilles Dufrasne）的對話中開始，

and Gilles Dufrasne of Carbon Market Watch.

聽聽一些承諾和存在的陷阱。

DB: Now, carbon credits are being used as a big tool

大衛·比洛： 現在，碳信用額正被用作中和

to neutralize otherwise growing emissions.

不斷增長的排放量的重要工具。

Are they working?

它們有效嗎？

Gilles Dufrasne: So my short answer to this would be that they're not.

吉爾斯·杜弗拉森： 我對此簡短的回答是，它們無效。

First, because there is a major concern

首先，人們對這些碳信用額的

around the actual quality of those credits.

實際質量存在擔憂。

They're each supposed to represent a full ton of CO2

每一個都應該代表整一噸

that's been reduced or removed and permanently stored.

被減少或移除並 永久儲存的二氧化碳。

But in reality,

但在現實中，

many of those credits actually don't represent that full ton of CO2.

其中許多碳信用額實際 無法代表整噸二氧化碳。

In addition to that,

除此之外，

many credits are used in inappropriate ways by companies.

許多碳信用額被公司 以不適當的方式使用。

For example, a company that would make a net-zero claim,

例如，一家公司會提出 凈零排放聲明，

a carbon neutrality claim for a specific product,

即針對特定產品的碳中和聲明，

but with these claims actually only covering 10 or 20 or 50 percent

但這些聲明實際上僅涵蓋 10% 、 20% 或 50%

of the total emissions of that company or of the good.

該公司或貨物的總排放量。 這最終具有誤導性。

And this ultimately is misleading.

It's misleading to the public, it's misleading to regulators,

這是對公眾的誤導， 對監管機構的誤導，

it's misleading to business partners.

對商業夥伴的誤導。

It gives the impression that these companies,

它給人的印象是，這些公司，

this product doesn't have a net-negative impact on the climate,

這個產品對氣候沒有凈負面影響，

when in reality it certainly does.

但實際上它確實有。

DB: So what does it mean

大衛·比洛： 那麽，當一家公司說它

when a company says it has neutralized the emissions

已經中和了其產品或活動的 排放是什麽意思呢？

from its products or activities?

GD: Well, in most cases it means

吉爾斯·杜弗拉森： 嗯，在大多數情況下，

the company has purchased a certain number of carbon credits,

這意味著公司已經購買了 一定數量的碳信用額，

but there is a lot of unclarity

但這些碳信用額的實際質量

around the actual quality of those credits,

有很多不明確之處，

what do they represent

它們代表什麽

as well as the share of total emissions that's really being covered,

以及實際覆蓋的總排放量份額，

that's really being compensated through the purchase of these credits.

實際上是通過 購買這些碳信用額來補償的。

And this issue of clarity, of transparency.

還有清晰度、透明度的問題。

And so I think that's really something

因此，我認為這確實是 我們現在需要認真解決的問題，

that we need to seriously address right now

in the current context of a booming market

在當前市場蓬勃發展的背景下，

where there is a lot of interest,

有很多興趣， 和很多投資在數量上增長。

a lot of investment in growing it quantitatively.

If we don't address the quality dimension of it,

如果我們不解決它的質量問題，

we're going to grow a system in which there's not going to be any trust

我們就會發展出 一個沒有任何信任的系統

or that trust is progressively going to erode

或者這種信任會逐漸被侵蝕

and ultimately that will destroy the value of the system itself.

最終會摧毀系統本身的價值。

DB: Sounds like something called greenwashing.

大衛·比洛： 聽起來像是所謂的漂綠。

Can you give us some particularly egregious examples

你能給我們舉一些 特別惡劣的例子嗎？

of that kind of activity?

GD: Yeah, I think, you know,

吉爾斯·杜弗拉森： 好的，我認為你知道

carbon-neutral fossil fuels is an obvious one ...

碳中和化石燃料 是一個顯而易見的…

(Laughter and applause)

（笑聲和掌聲）

... that many of you will certainly have had heard of.

…你們中的許多人肯定聽說過。

I mean, to me, it's just an oxymoron,

對我來說，這只是個矛盾修辭法，

it makes no sense.

完全說不通。

It is flawed conceptually and practically.

它在概念上和實踐上都是有缺陷的。

At a conceptual level,

在概念層面上，

it gives the impression that we can continue to burn fossil fuels

它給人的印象是， 我們可以以延續了幾十年的方式

in the way we’ve been doing it for decades --

繼續燃燒化石燃料。

exactly what has landed us in the crisis we are in today --

這正是讓我們陷入 今天的危機的原因——

and that somehow, magically we can do this

不知何故，神奇的是，

without having a net impact on climate.

我們可以在不對氣候 造成凈影響的情況下做到這一點。

And that is fundamentally misleading, and it’s damaging.

這從根本上是誤導性的， 而且是有害的。

It is harmful to our collective willingness

這對我們采取行為改變 和昂貴投資的集體意願是有害的，

to adopt the behavioral changes and the costly investments

that we need to adopt

我們需要采取這些措施，

in order to transition to a safer planet.

以過渡到一個更安全的地球。

LL: While we can agree

林賽·萊文： 雖然我們同意

that cutting greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible is our ultimate goal,

盡快減少溫室氣體排放是 我們的最終目標，

the idea of net zero has inspired some pretty vigorous debate.

但凈零碳的想法 已經引發了一些相當激烈的辯論。

Here's Professor James Dyke

下面是來自埃克塞特大學 （University of Exeter）的

of the University of Exeter with his concerns.

詹姆斯·戴克教授 提出的他的擔憂。

JD: Within just a few years,

詹姆斯·戴克： 在短短幾年內，

net zero has become the anchor concept

凈零排放已成為全球 避免災難計劃的核心概念。

for the world's plans to avoid disaster.

It sounds simple enough.

這聽起來很簡單。

Its central premise is that the risks of climate change

它的核心前提是， 氣候變化的風險

is that there is too much carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.

在於地球大氣中二氧化碳過多。

So it follows, we must stop emitting more

因此，我們必須 停止排放更多的氣體，

and even remove some of it.

甚至清除一部分。

Hopefully by the middle of this century,

希望到本世紀中葉，

any residual emissions will be balanced by technologies

任何殘留的排放都能被 從大氣中去除碳的技術所平衡。

that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

But by introducing carbon removals into climate policies,

但是，通過將碳移除引入氣候政策，

we have set a trap

我們設置了一個陷阱，

because it is incredibly seductive to rely on carbon removals in the future

因為依靠未來的碳移除， 聽起來具有難以置信的誘惑力，

instead of rapid decarbonization now.

所以不再著眼於當下的快速脫碳。

It gives the impression we are acting,

它給人的印象是我們正在采取行動，

so businesses don't need to change their models

因此企業不需要改變他們的模式，

and governments don't need to propose bold action.

政府也不需要提出大膽的行動。

What this means is that it is now almost inevitable

這意味著， 我們現在幾乎不可避免地將進入一個

that we will be entering a warmer and more dangerous world.

更溫暖、更危險的世界。

How did this happen?

這是怎麽發生的？

How did the idea of net zero become so compromised, so corrupted?

凈零碳的概念是如何變得如此妥協、 如此腐敗的？

A key moment for the development of net zero was the 2015 Paris Agreement.

凈零排放發展的關鍵時刻是 2015 年的《巴黎協定》。

The overall objective of this landmark climate treaty

這項具有裏程碑意義的 氣候條約的總體目標是，

was that global warming should be limited to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius

全球變暖應控製在 不超過 1.5 攝氏度的範圍內，

to reduce the risks of devastating impacts.

以減少災難性影響的風險。

Many scientists, including myself,

許多科學家，包括我自己，

were very skeptical that this was possible,

都非常懷疑這是否可能，

given the absence of radical proposals.

因為沒有激進的建議。

But there was also a deep sense of responsibility

但也有一種強烈的責任感，

to try to make the Paris Agreement work.

試圖讓《巴黎協定》發揮作用。

They soon discovered

他們很快發現，

it was impossible to get their models to decarbonize as fast as 1.5 required

不可能讓他們的模型以 1.5 攝氏度的 要求的速度脫碳的同時，

if one assumed continuous economic growth.

還可以使經濟有持續增長。

The only way to make the models work was by introducing carbon removal.

讓這些模型起作用的唯一方法 是引入碳去除。

More recently, attention has turned to DAC: direct air capture.

最近，人們的註意力轉向了 DAC：直接空氣捕獲。

This would strip out carbon dioxide molecules directly from the air

這將直接從空氣中 剝離二氧化碳分子，

and then pump them to underground storage sites.

然後將它們泵送到地下儲存地點。

The technology is interesting,

這項技術很有趣，

but attempts to scale up DAC face two fundamental challenges.

但試圖擴大 DAC 的規模 面臨著兩個基本挑戰。

First, the process is extremely energy intensive,

首先，該過程非常耗能，

requiring significant amounts of electricity

需要大量的電力，

and sometimes natural gas to run.

有時還需要天然氣才能運行。

Second, safely storing carbon dioxide is not a trivial enterprise.

其次，安全儲存二氧化碳並非易事。

It's likely to be the case that every carbon storage site

很可能每個碳儲存地點

will need to be carefully tailored to the specific geological circumstances

都需要根據註入地點的 特定地質環境進行仔細定製。

at the injection sites.

Now such concerns with carbon removal are sometimes brushed away

現在，這種對碳去除的擔憂有時會被

with the sheer enthusiasm that surrounds these technologies.

圍繞這些技術的純粹熱情所掩蓋。

The assumption appears to be that large-scale carbon removal will work

假設似乎是大規模的碳去除將會奏效，

because it has to work.

因為它必須奏效。

Even if we assume these technologies do emerge at scale,

即使我們假設這些技術 確實大規模出現，

it's likely they will be very expensive to run.

它們的運行成本也可能非常昂貴。

Some studies estimate many trillions of US dollars

一些研究估計，數萬億美元的投資

to no evident economic benefit,

沒有明顯的經濟效益，

since it's about clearing up carbon pollution and hiding it underground.

因為這是為了清除碳汙染 並將其隱藏在地下。

The time has come for us to voice our fears about net zero policies,

現在是我們表達 對凈零政策擔憂的時候了，

and that begins by leveling with the public

我們首先要向公眾 公開《巴黎協定》的內容。

about the Paris Agreement.

At the moment, we are desperately trying to manage the narrative

目前，我們正竭力 控製敘事和調整模式，

and adjusting models

in order to avoid acknowledging that the Paris Agreement is failing.

以避免承認《巴黎協定》正在失敗。

A 2021 survey conducted by the science journal Nature

科學雜誌《自然》在 2021 年 進行的一項調查發現，

found that a majority of IPCC climate scientists who responded

大多數接受調查的 IPCC 氣候科學家認為

thought we were heading towards a catastrophic

我們正走向 災難性的 3 攝氏度升溫。

three degrees Celsius of warming.

Only four percent thought limiting to 1.5 was likely.

只有 4% 的人認為 限製在 1.5 攝氏度的水平是可能的。

We can avoid climate catastrophe, but I fear we won't

我們可以避免氣候災難， 但我擔心，

if we don't confront our wishful thinking around net zero.

如果我們不正視我們對凈零的 一廂情願的想法，我們就無法避免。

DB: As you can see,

唐納·貝爾德： 就像你們看到的，

carbon markets are not uniformly delivering what they promise,

碳市場並沒有統一兌現他們的承諾，

and many believe they may actually be making things worse.

許多人認為它們實際上 可能正在使事情變得更糟。

However, they are potentially a mechanism to provide investment

然而，它們可能是一種為重要的 自然解決方案提供投資的機製，

in vital natural solutions

and if done differently,

如果采取不同的做法，

could bring significant money to people and places that need it.

可能會為需要資金的人和地方 帶來大量資金。

Here is Kavita Prakash-Mani of Mandai Nature

這裏是曼達伊自然公司的

卡維塔·普拉卡什-馬尼 (Kavita Prakash-Mani)，

to talk about ways to ensure that local communities

他談到了如何確保當地社區

benefit from this growing industry.

從這個不斷增長的行業中受益。

Kavita Prakash-Mani: Let me start by saying that a ton of carbon

卡維塔·普拉卡什-馬尼 ： 首先要說的是，

一噸碳不僅僅是一噸碳。 它在其中體現了自然保護、

is not just a ton of carbon.

It embodies in it natural protection,

community interests and benefits,

社區興趣和利益，

as well as helping save us from disastrous climate change.

以及幫助我們 免受災難性氣候變化的影響。

We have a lot of nature-based conservation organizations protecting

我們有很多以自然為基礎的保護組織

and restoring our ecosystems,

來保護和恢復我們的生態系統，

and they are all wondering

他們都想知道 如何成為這個碳市場的一部分。

how they can be part of this carbon market.

Their ability to monetize carbon that they sequester

他們將其封存的碳貨幣化的能力

will be crucial for their long-term survival

對他們長期生存和 產生我們都渴望的影響至關重要。

and the impact that we all want.

After all, nature and climate are two sides of the same coin.

畢竟，自然和氣候是 一枚硬幣的兩面。

However, to get to those opportunities,

然而，為了獲得這些機會，

we need to address some really systemic challenges.

我們需要解決 一些真正系統性的挑戰。

Take, for example, the technical aspects that we have on any carbon credit:

以碳信用額技術方面為例：

additionality, permanence, no leakage, baselining,

附加性、持久性、無泄漏、基線化，

all very difficult concepts for these small organizations.

對於這些小型組織來說 都是非常困難的概念。

Add to that measurement and verification.

再加上測量和驗證。

How do we get pre-feasibility studies,

我們如何獲得預可行性研究、

feasibility studies, project development?

可行性研究和項目開發？

How do these small organizations take on these high costs

這些小組織在碳價非常低時，

該如何承擔這些高額的費用 來提供這些文件呢？

when the price of carbon is very low to deliver these documentation?

But that's not the problem with the larger players.

但這並不是大型企業的問題所在。

And there's a systemic imbalance of power.

而且存在著系統性的權力不平衡。

Larger NGOs, companies, project developers

較大的非政府組織、 公司、項目開發商

all have access to international markets and institutional finance.

都可以進入國際市場和機構融資。

The smaller organizations see the opportunity

較小的組織看到了機會，

but just do not have the means to tap into it.

但就是沒有辦法利用它。

We should also look one level higher, at governments.

我們還應該把目光投向政府。

Take, for instance, Indonesia,

以印度尼西亞為例，

a country with the highest potential

一個利用基於自然解決方案 減少碳排放潛力最大的國家。

of carbon mitigation from nature-based solutions.

It's the third-largest tropical forest.

它是第三大熱帶森林。

It has a coastline with mangroves,

它的海岸線上有紅樹林，

and it has 15 to 30 million hectares of peatland.

還有 1500 萬到 3000萬 公頃的泥炭地。

But the government has restricted any new projects from being developed

但政府限製了任何新項目的開發

or carbon credits from being sold to the international market.

或碳信用額向國際市場的銷售。

This has merit because, after all,

這有其道理，因為畢竟

developing countries also need to meet their nationally determined contributions,

發展中國家也需要履行 其國家決定的貢獻，

and they do not have to sell cheap credits to developed countries

它們不必向已經破壞了 部分環境的發達國家

that have already destroyed part of their environment

或沒有脫碳的公司 出售廉價的碳信用額。

or companies that are not decarbonizing.

However, it does restrict international finance from going into conservation

然而，它確實限製了 國際資金進入保護

and into communities.

和進入社區。

Some countries are trying to get the market to work.

一些國家正試圖讓市場運轉起來。

In Asia, that's Vietnam and Cambodia.

在亞洲，在越南和柬埔寨。

But we still do not have the right market mechanisms to ensure that it's equitable,

但我們仍然沒有正確的市場機製 來確保它的公平性、

safe and the impact that we want.

安全性和我們想要的影響。

DB: As Kavita said, a ton of carbon is not just a ton of carbon.

大衛·比洛：正如卡維塔所說， 一噸碳不僅僅是一噸碳。

To build on that,

在此基礎上，

here's Susan Chomba of the World Resources Institute Africa,

來自非洲世界資源研究所的 蘇珊·瓊巴（Susan Chomba）

to talk in more detail about all the things we miss

將更詳細地討論

when we think too narrowly about carbon benefits

當我們過於狹隘地 考慮碳效益而忽略其他時，

and nothing else.

我們錯過的所有東西。

Susan Chomba: So I'm going to talk to you

蘇珊·瓊巴： 所以我要和你們談談

about all the elements about carbon markets

碳市場中所有與碳無關的因素。

that have got nothing to do with carbon.

Our forests, peatlands and oceans are more than the carbon that they store.

我們的森林、泥炭地和海洋 不僅僅代表它們所能儲存的碳。

They're the foundation of livelihoods of billions of people

它們是數十億人口

who depend on them directly and indirectly.

直接或間接依賴的生計的基礎。

They provide the hydrological functions that ensure we have rivers, we have lakes

它們提供水文功能， 確保我們有河流和湖泊，

and that we can grow food successfully.

確保我們能成功種植糧食。

They are home to biodiversity.

They are also home to indigenous people

他們也是土著人的家園，

who protect them with their blood, sweat and tears.

他們用鮮血、汗水和 淚水保護著這裏。

So when we lose these ecosystems,

因此，當我們失去這些生態系統時，

the livelihoods of local communities

當地社區和土著人民的生計

and Indigenous people are adversely affected.

就會受到不利影響。

When you look at the way we designed the carbon markets,

當你觀察我們設計碳市場的方式時，

we designed them with various assumptions.

你會發現我們在設計的時候有 各種各樣的假設。

First of all,

首先，

carbon markets perpetuate the notion

碳市場延續了這樣一種觀念，

that our forests and peatlands are all about carbon.

即我們的森林和泥炭地都與碳有關。

They overlook the ecosystem services that these ecosystems provide,

他們忽視了這些生態系統 提供的生態系統服務，

such as clean water, healthy and nutritious food,

如清潔水、健康營養食品、

biodiversity and its related services

生物多樣性及其相關服務，

such as pollination, pest control

如授粉、害蟲防治

and even nitrogen fixation.

甚至固氮作用。

Companies are prepared to pay for carbon

企業願意為碳排放買單，

because it helps them to tick either their compliance box

因為這有助於它們在合規方面

or the public relation boxes.

或公關方面做出選擇。

But rarely do we couple that

但我們很少把它與 這些自然生態系統提供的

with the other ecosystem services

that these natural ecosystems are providing.

其他生態系統服務結合起來。

Carbon markets perpetuate the notion

碳市場延續了這樣一種觀念，

that we can continue with our fossil fuel-driven lifestyles

即我們可以繼續 我們以化石燃料為驅動的生活方式，

and offset our externalities, and perhaps even our guilt,

並抵消我們的外部性，

甚至可能是我們對位於 南半球的貧窮當地社區的內疚。

on the poor local communities that are located in the Global South.

In fact, nowadays,

事實上，如今，

if a lot of projects provide a lot of ecosystem services

如果許多項目 提供了大量的生態系統服務，

but are not solid on the carbon side,

但在碳方面並不紮實，

they are often dismissed as poorly designed or poorly governed.

它們通常會被視為 設計不善或管理不善。

Carbon markets are based on complicated

碳市場基於復雜

and costly reporting and verification systems.

且昂貴的報告和驗證系統。

And these end up taking up most of the revenue

而這些最終占用了 當時來自碳的大部分收入。

that is then coming from carbon.

And local communities get the leftovers if they are lucky.

而當地社區如果幸運的話， 會得到剩余的東西。

The value and the price of carbon,

碳的價值和價格

compared to alternative land uses such as mining,

與采礦、化石燃料開采等 其他土地用途相比，

fossil fuel extraction,

has been far too low for far too long.

長期以來都太低了。

And so what we are witnessing

因此，我們看到的是，

is governments in the Global South continue to issue permits for mining,

南半球政府仍在繼續向采礦、

for oil exploration,

石油開采，

in some of the most critical ecosystems: peatlands, forests.

和一些最關鍵的生態系統中， 如：泥炭地、森林，繼續發放許可證。

I work a lot in the Congo Basin.

我經常在剛果盆地工作。

I see it every day.

我每天都能看到。

LL: So we've heard what isn't working

林賽·萊文： 我們已經知道了什麽是行不通的，

and what existing carbon markets often miss on the ground.

而現有的碳市場往往忽略了這一點。

Now let's dive into different ways of thinking

現在，讓我們深入研究 可以重塑系統的不同思維方式

that could reshape the system

and actually generate the positive outcomes we want.

並實際產生我們想要的積極結果。

Here's Gabrielle Walker of Rethinking Removals.

這是來自反思移除的 加布裏埃爾·沃克（Gabrielle Walker）。

Gabrielle Walker: I think the carbon market is immensely powerful

加布裏埃爾·沃克： 我認為碳市場非常強大

and immensely valuable,

且非常有價值，

and I do think we can use it as a powerful tool

我確實認為我們可以把它作為幫助

for helping to solve the climate crisis.

解決氣候危機的有力工具。

But I've also started to think

但我也開始覺得我們一直

that we've been thinking about it the wrong way.

在用錯誤的方式思考這個問題。

There are three really big and important climate outcomes

有三個真正大的和重要的氣候結果，

that the carbon market could help with.

是碳市場可以幫助實現的。

So there’s reducing fossil emissions as fast as possible;

因此，有盡可能快地減少 化石燃料的排放；

there’s protecting natural carbon sinks;

保護自然碳匯；

and there's removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

還有從大氣中去除二氧化碳。

Reduction, protection and removal.

減少、保護和移除。

And I found that in lots of people's minds,

我發現在很多人的腦海中，

those three get kind of smooshed together in one generic kind of, offset,

這三樣東西被混雜在一起， 成為一種通用的、抵消性的東西。

but it's worth separating them out

但值得將它們分開，

because those outcomes need different kinds of incentives.

因為這些結果需要 不同類型的激勵措施。

I'll show you what I mean.

我來告訴你我的意思。

If you start with the first one,

如果你從第一個開始，

reducing fossil emissions as fast as possible.

盡快減少化石排放。

That's reduction credits.

這就是減分。

Now, one problem with those

現在，它們的一個問題是 它們實際上並不能中和排放。

is that they don't actually neutralize emissions.

So if I put a ton of CO2 in the air,

所以如果我排放 一噸二氧化碳到空氣中，

and I pay you not to put your ton of CO2 in the air,

我付錢讓你不排放 你那一噸的二氧化碳到空氣中，

my ton is still there.

我那一噸仍然在那裏。

It doesn't get you to zero, it doesn't neutralize.

它不會讓你變成零， 也不會中和。

And this is the realm of quite a lot of traditional offsets.

而這是相當多的傳統抵消的範疇。

Another issue with them, is they tend to be very cheap,

它們的另一個問題是 它們往往非常便宜，

less than 20 dollars a ton.

不到 20 美元一噸。

So it can get immensely tempting just to buy loads of credits

因此，僅僅購買大量的信用額度，

and not do the hard work of reducing your own emissions.

而不去做減少自己排放的艱苦工作， 可能會變得非常誘人。

And that is not where we should be putting the money.

這不是我們應該投資的地方。

But where reduction credits can help us

但是，減少信用額度可以幫助我們

is in creating clean infrastructure

在一些地方建立清潔的基礎設施，

in places where it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

否則這些設施就不會發生。

So if you think about it that way,

所以如果你這麽想，

that's the outcome you're trying to get to,

這就是你想要達到的結果，

then the incentives to build around reduction credits,

那麽圍繞減排信用額度建設的激勵，

the highest-rated reduction credits,

最高評級的減排信額，

will be the ones that drive money towards building clean infrastructure

將會推動資金 流向南半球的清潔基礎設施建設。

in the Global South.

And the cheapest coal-fired power plant to shut down

而關閉的最便宜的燃煤電廠

will be the one in the Global South that was never built in the first place.

將會是南半球 從一開始就沒有建造的電廠。

OK, so that's the first one.

好，這是第一個。

Second one, protecting natural carbon sinks.

第二，保護自然碳匯。

Now, these already exist in the carbon market,

現在，這些已經存在於碳市場中，

like the reduction credits.

比如減排信用額度。

And like reduction credits, they don't neutralize emissions.

和減排信用額度一樣， 它們不能抵消排放。

I put a ton of CO2 in the air,

我向空氣中排放一噸二氧化碳，

you stop a ton coming out from a sink,

你阻止一噸二氧化碳 從碳匯排放出來，

my ton's still in the air.

我的一噸還在空氣中。

They also tend to get smooshed together.

它們還往往被擠在一起。

There isn’t a separate category called protection credits -- yet.

目前還沒有一個單獨的類別 叫做保護信額。

And I think it's worth separating them out

我認為有必要把它們分開，

because it's hugely important to drive money

因為把錢花在保護

towards protecting those sinks,

這些水池、雨林和泥炭地上是 非常重要的。

rain forests, peatlands.

So then what incentives do you build around?

那麽，你是圍繞著 什麽激勵措施來建立的呢？

What are the highest-rated protection credits?

什麽是最高等級的保護信額？

They'd be the ones maybe with the biggest carbon stores,

他們可能是擁有最大碳儲存的人，

maybe the ones that are most vulnerable,

也許是最脆弱的，

maybe the ones that protect the most biodiversity,

也許是那些保護 最多生物多樣性的人，

maybe the ones that drive the money towards the communities

也許是那些將錢推向社區的人，

that are actually there husbanding and protecting those stores.

那些實際在管理和 保護這些碳儲存的人。

OK, third category, we’ve heard a lot about this,

第三類，我們已經聽過很多次了，

third category: removal credits.

第三類：移除信額。

That's taking a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere and keeping it out.

這將從大氣中吸收大量的二氧化碳， 並將其排除在外。

So unlike the other two categories of credit,

因此，與其他兩類信用不同的是，

removals credits really do neutralize emissions.

移除信額確實能中和排放。

If I put a ton of CO2 in the air,

如果我在空氣中排放一噸二氧化碳，

I pay you to remove a ton,

我付錢讓你去除一噸，

you get to zero

你會得到零，

because what goes up does come down.

因為上升的二氧化碳會下降。

Those are the only category of credits that can be used to claim net zero.

這些是唯一一類 可以用來達到凈零的信額。

None of the others can do it.

其他都無法做到。

They do already exist in the carbon market,

它們確實已經存在於碳市場中，

really tiny percentage of the total.

占總量的比例很小。

And we're going to need an awful lot more of them.

而我們將會需要極多這樣的信額。

So at the moment,

因此，目前，

every year we're removing durably maybe 100,000 tons of CO2.

每年我們都會持久地 消除大約 10 萬噸的二氧化碳。

And according to the IPCC,

而根據 IPCC 的說法，

carbon removals are now unavoidable to get to net zero by 2050.

為了在 2050 年達到凈零， 碳移除是不可避免的。

And by 2050,

到 2050 年，

we're going to have to be removing billions of tons.

我們將不得不清除數十億噸。

So to get from a 100,000 tons to billions of tons,

因此，要從 10萬 噸到數十億噸，

we're going to have to start really small in this almost nonexistent industry

我們必須從這個幾乎不存在的行業中 非常小的規模開始，

and scale it up to the gigaton scale, affordably,

然後在經濟上將其擴大到 數十億噸的規模，

without causing other undesirable side effects

同時不造成其他不良的副作用，

and making sure that these removals are real.

並確保這些移除是真實的。

And we've got to get the cost down very quickly

我們必須盡快降低成本，

the way that we did for solar and wind.

就像我們在太陽能和 風能上做的那樣。

So that's the objective,

這就是目標，

that's the outcome that we're trying to achieve.

這就是我們正在努力實現的結果。

DB: So that's a way to reorganize our overall thinking

大衛·比洛：這是一種重新組織我們 對碳信用額度的整體思考的方法。

around carbon credits.

But how should companies reshape their thinking?

但企業應該如何重塑思維呢？

Here is Derik Broekhoff of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

這是斯德哥爾摩環境研究所的 德裏克·布羅克霍夫（Derik Broekhoff ）。

Derik Broekhoff: Net zero has become the dominant paradigm

德裏克·布羅克霍夫：凈零碳已成為 實現氣候目標的主導範式。

for climate ambition.

Many countries have announced net-zero targets,

許多國家已經宣布了凈零目標，

and so many companies are doing the same.

許多公司也在這樣做。

Today, I want to challenge the idea

今天，我想挑戰這樣的觀點：

that companies should emphasize achieving net zero for themselves

公司應該強調為自己實現凈零，

rather than focus on how best to contribute to global net zero.

而不是專註於 如何為全球凈零做出最佳貢獻。

I like the way Carbone 4 frames it:

我喜歡 Carbone 4 的框架方式：

"'A company is not carbon neutral.

「一家公司不是碳中和的，

It contributes to neutrality."

它為碳中和做出了貢獻。」

Let me explain why I believe it's essential to make this distinction.

讓我解釋一下為什麽 我認為必須做出這種區分。

Current net-zero frameworks presume that companies should imitate,

目前的凈零排放框架假定公司應該在

at a corporate level, what must happen globally.

公司層面上 模仿全球必須發生的事情。

That is, reduce their own emissions as far as possible

也就是說，盡可能減少自己的排放，

and balance out the emissions that remain with carbon dioxide removals.

並通過二氧化碳去除 來平衡剩余的排放。

Yet this notion is already leading to a perverse effect

然而，這種觀念已經對企業如何使用 減排資金產生了不良影響。

on how companies spend their mitigation dollars.

According to at least one study,

至少有一項研究表明，

just a handful of companies have already pledged more removals

只有少數幾家公司 已經承諾減少的碳量

than the entire world could provide.

超過整個世界所能提供的。

At a global level,

在全球範圍內，

removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

從大氣中去除二氧化碳

will be essential for limiting global warming.

對於限製全球變暖至關重要。

As the IPCC, for example, has made abundantly clear.

例如，IPCC 已經 非常清楚地表明了這一點。

But having corporate actors purchase removals in bulk

但是，讓企業主體 大量購買移除設備，

to achieve their own mini versions of net zero

以實現他們自己的迷你版凈零排放，

misses the forest for the trees.

是只見樹不見林。

The world desperately needs to reduce emissions.

世界迫切需要減少排放。

To move the world towards net zero,

為了推動世界實現凈零排放，

companies would do better in the near term to both reduce their own emissions

企業在短期內會做得更好， 既要減少自己的排放，

and help others do the same.

又要幫助其他人也這樣做。

First, focus on the big picture.

首先，著眼大局。

The idea of achieving net zero at a corporate level is self-centered.

在企業層面實現凈零的想法是 以自我為中心的。

We need to change the narrative from:

我們需要改變這種說法，

“We’re no longer part of the problem if we’ve neutralized our emissions,”

從 「如果我們已經中和了我們的 排放，我們就不再是問題的一部分，」

to “We are part of a global solution to climate change.”

到 「我們是全球氣候 變化解決方案的一部分「。

This means not just imitating what needs to happen globally,

這意味著不只是 模仿全球需要發生的事情，

but instead taking actions that beneficially advance

而是采取有益於 推進全球凈零排放結果的行動，

a global net-zero outcome,

including by prioritizing emission reductions over removals

包括在短期內 將減排量置於清除量之上。

in the near term.

Second, put equity front and center.

第二，把公平放在首位和中心位置。

From a scientific perspective,

從科學的角度來看，

there's no reason why the correct level of emissions

沒有理由說任何特定行為者的 正確排放水平應該是凈零。

for any given actor should be net zero.

What is fair and feasible could be net positive,

公平和可行的可能是凈正排放、

zero or negative emissions.

零排放或負排放。

Companies should focus on making equitable contributions to global goals,

企業應註重 為全球目標做出公平的貢獻，

including through near-term support for emission reductions

包括通過對其價值鏈之外的 減排提供近期的支持。

outside their value chains.

Third, connect with larger policy efforts.

第三，與更大範圍的政策對接。

No company acting on its own can solve the climate crisis.

沒有一家公司 可以單獨解決氣候危機。

We urgently need to focus attention on collective action.

我們迫切需要 把註意力集中在集體行動上。

Companies that are truly committed to net zero

真正致力於實現凈零排放的公司

need to support climate policies at all levels of government

需要支持各級政府和 國際上的氣候政策，

and internationally

that advance an equitable, comprehensive and coordinated global transition.

以推進公平、 全面和協調的全球轉型。

LL: We know many people think carbon credits

林賽·萊文： 我們知道，許多人認為碳信用額

and the idea of net zero are deeply flawed.

和凈零的想法存在嚴重缺陷。

But do they have to be?

但是他們必須如此嗎？

In our next talk,

在我們的下一次演講中，

Annette Nazareth of the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets

自願碳市場誠信委員會的 安妮特·拿撒勒（Annette Nazareth）

lays out a set of required core principles

提出了一套必要的核心原則，

to build a market that delivers robust, quantifiable

以建立一個提供強勁、可量化

and climate-positive outcomes.

和氣候積極成果的市場。

Annette Nazareth: Our starting point for the voluntary carbon market

安妮特·拿撒勒： 我們建立自願碳市場的出發點是，

is that it exists to accelerate a just transition to 1.5 degrees.

它的存在是為了加速 向 1.5 度的公正過渡。

It is an important complementary tool to mobilize billions of dollars

它是動員數十億美元的 重要補充工具

that wouldn't otherwise be available

否則就不能用於 氣候緩解並促使它的發生。

into climate mitigation that wouldn't otherwise happen.

But it will only deliver on that promise

但它只有在高度誠信的基礎上 才能兌現這一承諾。

if it is rooted in high integrity.

An important thing to know about the voluntary carbon markets

關於自願碳市場， 需要了解的一件重要事情是，

is that it is, as its name suggests, voluntary.

顧名思義，它是自願的。

It's driven by private sector actors,

它由私營部門參與者推動，

and it's not regulated by governments or by financial authorities.

不受政府或金融當局的監管。

But unregulated cannot mean chaotic or opaque.

但不受監管並不意味著 混亂或不透明。

I spent much of my career as a markets regulator,

我職業生涯的大部分時間 都在做市場監管者，

and I know markets.

我了解市場。

And I know that there are some who think

我知道有些人認為市場 總是在尋找一些新產品來兜售。

that markets are always looking for some new product to hawk.

And today, that product is carbon.

而今天，這種產品就是碳。

That's why in designing an effective market,

這就是為什麽 在設計一個有效的市場時，

we have to start with integrity.

我們必須從誠信開始。

These core carbon principles, which we call CCPs,

這些核心碳原則， 我們稱之為 CCP，

will address the most critical elements of credit quality.

將解決信用質量的最關鍵因素。

They include additionality,

它們包括額外性、

permanence, robust quantification,

持久性、穩健的量化、

validation and verification,

驗證和核實、

no double-counting,

不重復計算、

transition to net zero emissions

向凈零排放過渡

and sustainable development impacts and safeguards.

以及可持續發展影響和保障措施。

So let me unpack those a bit.

因此，讓我稍微解讀一下這些。

Additionality.

額外性。

Additionality means that the emission reduction or emission

額外性意味著 如果沒有碳信用額的收入，

wouldn't have happened without the revenue from carbon credits.

減排或排放就不會發生。

Permanence means that those reductions and removals will stand the test of time.

永久性意味著這些削減和移除 將經得起時間的考驗。

And if they don't, they will be fully compensated.

如果他們不這樣做， 他們將得到充分的補償。

An example of that would be a forestry project

例如一個林業的項目，

that issues carbon credits that is then destroyed in a wildfire.

在它發放碳額後，在野火中被摧毀。

Robust quantification means that the impact of the credits

穩健量化意味著 信額的影響被精確地測量，

is accurately measured and accounted for conservatively

並在堅實科學的基礎上保守地計算。

based on solid science.

Validation and verification means

驗證和核實意味著

that the numbers are genuine and meaningful

這些數字是真實和有意義的，

and are validated and verified by an accredited body

並由一個有誠信的機構 進行驗證和核實，

that has the integrity to do that job robustly.

以便有力地完成這項工作。

No double-counting means

沒有重復計算意味著

that a carbon credit is registered and issued only once,

碳信用額只登記和發放一次，

and the emissions reductions and removals that that credit generates

該信用額產生的減排量和清除量

will only be claimed by one party.

只能由一方申請。

Meanwhile,

同時，

our colleagues at the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative, the VCMI,

我們在自願碳市場誠信倡議 (VCMI) 的 同事們正在研究類似的標準，

are working on similar standards that will address credible claims

以解決可信的索賠要求，

so that we can come to a common understanding

以便我們能夠達成共識，

that carbon credits will only count

碳信用額度只有在被用作合法的

if they are used as a complementary tool within a legitimate net-zero pathway.

凈零排放途徑的補充工具時才算數。

If we have integrity

如果我們在信額的供應、

in the supply of credits,

how they are traded and how they are used,

交易和使用方面保持誠信，

then a powerful price signal will emerge.

那麽一個強有力的價格信號就會出現。

LL: The Dilemma Series was born out of a strong conviction

林賽·萊文：《困境系列》的誕生 源於這樣一個堅定的信念：

that when reasonable people disagree,

當理性的人產生分歧時，

the way out is not to dismiss one side over another,

解決問題的方法不是摒棄一方，

but in fact to hold and value different points of view

而是事實上堅持和重視不同的觀點，

and see what we can generate together.

看看我們能共同產生什麽。

In dilemma thinking, this is called the resolution zone,

在困境思維中，這被稱為解決區域，

and reaching it is vital if we are going to make real progress on climate.

如果我們要在氣候問題上取得真正的 進展，達到這個區域是至關重要的。

Let's hear again from some leading voices who we invited to share ideas,

讓我們再次聽到我們邀請的一些主要聲音， 他們分享想法，

ask questions and engage in productive debate.

提出問題，並進行富有成效的辯論。

NG: In my inbox, every day, are the debates in the climate community

尼利·吉爾伯特： 每天在我的收件箱裏，都是氣候學界

about how exactly we're going to get this done.

關於我們到底該 如何實現這一目標的辯論。

And the debates are important

辯論很重要，

because this is the hardest problem that we've ever faced.

因為這是我們曾經面臨的 最困難的問題。

And so we have to have open ears,

因此，我們必須敞開心扉，

even more open perhaps to our critics than to the ones who agree with us

甚至對我們的批評者比 對那些同意我們的人更開放，

because we have so much to figure out at

因為我們有很多事情要弄清楚。

TTO: I had a good conversation about how,

塔瑪拉·托爾斯·奧拉福林： 我有一個很好的對話，

as much as I would like to pretend we're going to get there on climate

我很想假裝我們將 在氣候問題上取得進展，

because of trust and relationships,

因為信任和關系，

we've wasted all the time for that

我們浪費了所有的時間，

so we really need to get there by alignment.

所以我們真的需要 通過結盟來達成目標。

If we can agree to a few things

如果我們能達成幾點共識，

that lead to not dying on a fiery gas ball,

讓我們不至於死在燃燒的煤氣球上，

I will build my relationships on the way to that.

我會在這個過程中 建立我的人際關系。

NK: We heard in the first sessions about how to make sure

納特·基奧漢： 在第一屆會議上，

that the carbon market is working for people on the ground

我們聽到了如何確保 碳市場為基層民眾和基層社區服務，

and communities on the ground

who didn't do anything to contribute to climate change

而那些對氣候變化沒有任何貢獻的人

are going to be often the most vulnerable to bearing the brunt of its impacts.

往往最容易受到氣候變化的沖擊。

They're not thinking about the carbon market,

他們沒有考慮碳市場，

we heard that from Susan Chomba from her work in Burundi,

我們從蘇珊·瓊巴在布隆迪的工作中 聽到了這一點，

and from Kavita Prakash-Mani from her work with smallholders in Southeast Asia.

從卡維塔·普拉卡什-馬尼那裏聽到了 她在東南亞小農的工作。

JF: The thing that shifted my thinking the most

儒勒·弗裏德曼： 最讓我轉變想法的是，

was the way that Annette Nazareth talked about what is necessary to create

安妮特·拿撒勒談到 創建一個綜合的、

in an integrated and high-integrity carbon market.

高完整性的碳市場的 必要條件的方式。

That level of clarity I found actually shifted my mind

我發現的這種清晰度 實際上改變了我的想法，

in terms of structuring a market in a valuable way.

以一種有價值的方式構建市場。

DB: There were a lot of kind of, overlapping ideas

大衛·比洛： 有很多重疊的想法，

on how to get to solutions from people who don't really agree on everything.

關於如何從那些意見 並不完全一致的人那裏得到解決方案。

JD: All carbon removal proposals need to be based on robust science,

詹姆斯·戴克：所有碳去除提案 都需要基於強大的科學、

engineering and economics.

工程和經濟。

Once we have a credible total amount of carbon

一旦我們有了可靠的碳總量，

that can be removed by proposed technology

可以通過擬議的技術

that includes its capture and safe storage,

包括其捕獲和安全儲存，

then and only then can it be included in net-zero policies and models.

那麽也只有這樣， 它才能被納入凈零政策和模型。

GW: So to get from 100,000 tons to billions of tons,

加布裏埃爾·沃克： 因此，要從 10萬 噸到數十億噸，

we're going to have to start really small in this almost nonexistent industry

我們必須從這個幾乎不存在的行業中 非常小的規模開始，

and scale it up to the gigaton scale

然後在經濟上 將其擴大到數十億噸的規模，

affordably without causing other undesirable side effects

而不造成其他不良的副作用，

of making sure that these removals are real.

以確保這些移除是真實的。

KPM: On the government side, we need clear guidance and clear regulation.

卡維塔：在政府方面， 我們需要明確的指導和明確的監管。

SC: Good carbon markets must help us to cut emissions from the source.

蘇珊·瓊巴：良好的碳市場 必須幫助我們從源頭上減少排放。

We have to decarbonize our supply chains.

我們必須使我們的供應鏈脫碳。

We have to decarbonize our economies.

我們必須使我們的經濟脫碳。

We have to decarbonize our lifestyles.

我們必須使我們的生活方式脫碳。

TTO: I think deep listening really matters

塔瑪拉：我認為深度傾聽 對於像我們今天這樣的對話真的很重要，

for conversations like the ones we had today

and the ongoing thorniness of people who feel threatened

以及對一個正在衰退的 星球感到威脅的人

by a planet in decline trying to make decisions.

試圖做出決定的持續刺痛。

JF: The heterodoxy of perspective and opinion stimulates new ideas.

儒勒·弗裏德曼：觀點和 意見的異質性激發了新的想法。

And if you start the conversations with respect and with open minds,

如果你以尊重和 開放的心態開始對話，

you get to new places.

你就會到達新的地方。

And we had that in our breakout group, for sure.

當然，我們的分組討論中 有這種情況。

JD: But we need a kind of grounded sense of hope and optimism,

詹姆斯·戴克：但我們需要 一種紮實的希望和樂觀感，

which has got kind of rough edges and realism.

這種希望和樂觀主義 有粗糙的邊緣和現實主義。

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I agree.

湯姆·裏維特-卡納克：我同意。

JD: And we somehow need to embrace those fears

詹姆斯·戴克： 我們以某種方式需要接受這些恐懼，

because often we don't want to, right?

因為我們往往不想，對吧？

TRC: So I think that a stubborn and determined optimism

湯姆·裏維特-卡納克： 所以我認為，絕望的另一面

lies on the other side of despair.

是一種頑固而堅定的樂觀主義。

I think you have to go through that and you have to stare into the abyss

我認為你必須經歷這一點， 你必須凝視深淵並說：

and say: “This is possible, it may even be likely, but you know what?

「這是可能的， 甚至可能是可能的，但你知道嗎？

I'm going to do everything I can at this moment

此時此刻，我將盡我所能做出改變，

to be the change, to create that difference."

創造這種差異。」

TTO: I've never heard so many polite people

塔瑪拉·托爾斯·奧拉福林： 我從來沒聽過這麽多有禮貌的人

disagree about things they hate.

對他們討厭的事情意見不一。

I've never met so many people who hate offsets,

我從來沒有見過 這麽多討厭抵消交易的人，

who are still super nice and trying to figure out what could be useful

他們仍然超級友好，試圖弄清楚 他們不喜歡的東西有什麽有用的。

about a thing they're not sold on.

DB: It is useful to be reminded to like, be patient, to listen, to learn,

唐納·貝爾德： 提醒人們喜歡、耐心、傾聽、學習、

to be open, to be warm, to be generous and kind to people

開放、熱情、慷慨和善良地

who are on my side that I disagree with.

對待我不同意的人是有用的。

IY: Sometimes we do need to take a step back

伊內斯·亞巴爾： 有時我們確實需要退後一步，

and not put all that pressure on our own shoulders

不要把所有的壓力 都放在我們自己的肩膀上，

that we're going to find the solution.

我們會找到解決方案。

But it’s: How do we generate those connections

但問題是：我們如何產生 這些共同推動我們前進的聯系？

that together move us forward?

And maybe one day I will be sadder and I will be less optimistic,

也許有一天我會 更悲傷，不那麽樂觀，

but someone else will bring that hope to me.

但會有另一個人帶給我希望。

AG: When we try to reason collectively,

阿爾·戈爾： 當我們試圖集體推理時，

it's really important and valuable to recognize

認識到不同的觀點可以增加集體智慧，

that different points of view

這是非常重要和有價值的。

can add to the collective wisdom.

One of the most powerful telescopes in the world

世界上最強大的望遠鏡之一

had an innovative design when it was built,

在建造時有一個創新的設計，

including the decision to build two virtually identical telescopes

包括決定建造 兩個幾乎相同的望遠鏡，

only 60 meters apart.

僅相隔 60 米。

If they're looking at a supernova, 100 million light years away,

如果他們在觀察 一顆 1 億光年之外的超新星，

it turns out that the ability to view that object

事實證明，查看該對象的能力

from two different points of view only 60 meters apart

從兩個不同的角度來看，

在一個小星球上相距僅 60 米， 一切都會有所不同，

on a small planet makes all the difference

in the amount of information that can be collected and processed

包括我們可以收集和處理的信息量，

and used to enhance our understanding.

以及用於增強我們理解的信息量。

And the same thing is true when we try to reason together in a group.

而當我們試圖 在小組中一起推理時也是如此。

If there are different points of view,

如果有不同的觀點，

then the different life experiences of everyone in the group

那麽群體中每個人不同的生活經歷 可以增加集體智慧，

can add to the collective wisdom

and make the group far smarter

並是群體的智慧 遠高於其中最聰明的個體。

than the smartest individual in that group.