Us humans have been around for just about 300,000.

身為人類的我們僅存在了約30萬年。

Plastic came along only very recently, but if we were to continue to pollute the oceans at the current pace, it will take less than 30 years before there is more plastic in the waters than there is fish.

塑膠只在近代在出現，但如果我們繼續以目前的速度汙染海洋，在不到30年的時間裡，水中的塑膠就會像魚一樣多。

To put this into perspective: Imagine sharks have been on this planet for one full year.

從這個角度來說吧，想象鯊魚已經在這個地球上存在了整整一年的時間。

Just within the last 15 seconds before midnight on December 31st, we would've managed to pollute their natural habitat.

而就在12月31日午夜前的最後15秒內，我們設法汙染他們的自然棲息地。

To sharks this is a tragedy, a tragedy of the commons.

對鯊魚來說這是一個悲劇，一個公地悲劇。

The tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individuals acting in their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all others by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action.

公地悲劇是指個人為了行使自己的利益，通過耗盡或破壞共享資源來做出違背其他所有人的共同利益 。

The theory originated in an essay written in 1833 by the British economist, William Forster Lloyd.

該理論起源於英國經濟學家，威廉·佛司特·洛伊在1833年寫的一篇文章。

Lloyd argued that if a herder led a large herd of cattle onto a plot of common land to graze, also known as commons, overgrazing could happen.

洛伊認為，如果一個牧民帶領一大群牛到一塊公共土地上（也稱為公地）放牧，可能會導致過度放牧。

For each additional cow, the owner of that cow could receive additional benefits, while all other herders share the resulting damage.

每增加一頭牛，該頭牛的主人就可以得到額外利益，而其他牧民則要分擔由此帶來的損失。

There are three possible solutions that could help with this.

有三種可能的解決方案來幫助處理這個問題。

Social norms and a common understanding of what's right and what's wrong is probably our best bet. 

社會規範和對是非的共同理解可能是我們最好的選擇。

The Swiss Alps region for example has been run by a collective of farmers for hundreds of years. 

例如，瑞士阿爾卑斯山地區數百年來一直由農民集體經營。

As it is in the interest of all the farmers to keep the commons functioning, complex social norms emerged, and over time became traditions.

由於保持公地的運作符合所有農民的利益，因此複雜的社會規範便出現了，並隨著時間的推移成為傳統。

But when people don't share the same values, or new people arrive, such social contracts often fall apart and other solutions can help.

但當人們沒有相同的價值觀時，或新人加入時，這樣的社會契約往往會分崩離析，而其他的解決方案則可以幫上忙。

Privatization

私有化

Turning common property into a private one can give the owner an incentive to ensure its sustainability.

將共同財產變成私有財產可以激勵所有者確保其可持續發展性。

If that happens, it's important that the party who now owns that common, or rights of access, pays the full price for its exploitation.

如果發生這種情況，對於擁有公地或有訪問權的一方來說很重要的是，為其本身的開發和利用付出代價。

Privatization works well for things that can be fenced off, such as land, but less so for water or air. 

私有化對於可以用柵欄圍起來的東西，如土地，行之有效，但對於水或空氣就不盡然。

If someone creates negative externalities on private land but doesn't pay the full price of such externality, we need to turn to the third solution.

如果有人在私有土地上產生了外部成本卻沒有支付對於該外部成本所應付的代價，我們就需要求助於第三個解決方案。

State Regulation, such as farming permits, can limit the amount of commons available to everyone and thereby protect them.

國家法規，如耕作許可，能夠限制可供利用的公地數量，並從而保護這些公地。

Fishing quotas can ensure that those that take, also pay the bill.

捕魚配額可以確保那些捕獲到的人們也為其行為買單。

Taxes can create financial incentives by increasing the costs for creating negative externalities, such as polluting the air.

稅收可以通過提高造成外部成本的費用，像是空氣污染，來增加財政。

Regulation can make exploitation not only more costly, tax incomes can also be used to invest in initiatives that help reverse the damage done. 

法規不僅可以使剝削成本更高，稅收也可以投資一些能幫助扭轉已造成破壞的措施。

For complex problems, such as the plastic in our oceans, we probably need a combination of all three.

而對於複雜的問題，像是我們海洋中的塑膠，則可能需要結合這三者。

We can help create awareness, so we all feel morally obliged to reduce our personal use of non-recyclable plastics.

我們可以建立公眾意識，因而讓彼此都認為自己在道德上有義務減少不可回收的塑膠。

We could ask large producers of single-use plastics to take full responsibility for the mess their products create by dedicating resources to help clean up.

我們可以要求一次性塑膠的大型生產商投入資源幫助清理，對其產品造成的混亂承擔全部責任。

Countries could commit to local and international agreements that regulate the production of single use plastic and other pollutants.

各國可以承諾在地和國際協議來規範一次性塑膠的使用和其他汙染物的產生。

The grazing rules which were established in Switzerland in 1517 are still enforced today. 

1517年在瑞士制定的放牧規章至今仍在執行。

They state that "no one is permitted to send more cows to the Alps than he can feed in winter."

他們指出，「某人不可將超過其所能在冬季餵養的奶牛送往阿爾卑斯山」。

Applying the same rules to plastics, would mean no state ought to produce more plastic than they can recycle within the confines of their own borders.

而塑膠同樣適用於這樣的規則，意味著任何國家都不應該生產多於其國內能回收的塑膠量。

What do you think? Would a similar solution work for the oceans? 

你怎麼看？類似的解決方案對海洋是否有效呢？

And if not, what else can we do to protect the commons from the tragedy that's unfolding? 

如果不能，我們還能做些什麼來保護公地免於正在發生的悲劇所造成的影響？