It's a story about a system in crisis.

這個故事是關於一個深陷危機的系統。

We're trashing the planet, we're trashing each other, and we're not even having fun.

我們糟蹋這個地球，我們還互相糟蹋，卻一點都不覺得快樂。

The good thing is that when we start to understand the system, we start to see lots of places to step in and turn these problems into solutions.

好消息是當我們開始瞭解這個制度時。我們開始看到許多可以介入之處，然後把問題變成解決方法。

I am so glad that the world is finally getting together to stop climate change.

我很高興世界終於團結起來，一起阻止氣候變遷。

When I first heard that our leaders were meeting to talk about solutions, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Didn't you?

當我第一次聽說各國領導人要會面討論氣候變遷的解決方案時。我大大地鬆了一口氣，你也是吧？

Then I said, wait a minute.

然後我說，等一下。

What exactly are they planning to do about this problem? So I looked into it.

他們到底打算怎麼處理這個問題？於是我調查了一下。

And I gotta tell you, not all the solutions they're working on are what I'd call solutions.

我必須告訴你們 他們所著手的解決方案，並不盡然是真正的解決方案。

In fact, the leading solution, known as cap and trade or emissions trading, is actually a huge problem.

事實上，最主要的解決方式被稱為總量管制與交易制或排放交易制，其實是個大問題。

Now I know this is the last thing you want to hear, but the future of our planet is at stake.

我知道你不想再聽到這種事。但是地球的未來現在岌岌可危。

So we gotta take the time to understand what's going on here.

所以我們必須花時間來瞭解到底發生了什麼事。

Okay, meet the guys at the heart of this so-called solution.

好，我們來看看這個號稱是解決方案的核心成員有誰。

They include the guys from Enron who designed energy trading.

他們包括設計能源交易的恩隆企業。

And the Wall Street financiers like Goldman Sachs, who gave us the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

還包括高盛等華爾街金融機構，他們引發了次級房貸危機。

Their job is to develop brand new markets.

他們的任務是開發全新市場。

They stake their claims, and then when everyone and their grandmother wants in, they make off with huge amounts of money as the market becomes a giant bubble and bursts.

他們提出擁有權，然後當每個人和他們的奶奶都想參一腳、市場變成一個大泡泡並破裂時，他們就帶著巨款潛逃。

Well their latest bubble just burst, and now they have a new idea for a market: trading carbon pollution.

上一個泡泡剛破掉，現在又有了市場的新點子：交易碳污染。

They're about to develop a new three trillion-dollar bubble.

他們即將開發出一個價值，三兆美元的新泡泡。

But when this one bursts, it won't just take down our stock portfolios, it could take down everything!

但是當這個泡泡破掉時，它不只會搞垮我們的股票投資，還可能會毀滅一切。

So how does cap and trade work?

那麼到底總量管制與交易制度怎麼運作？

Well, pretty much all serious scientists agree that we need to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to three-hundred and fifty parts per million if we want to avoid climate disaster.

幾乎所有重要的科學家都同意，如果我們想避免氣候災害的發生，我們需要將大氣層的碳含量降低至350ppm。

In the U.S., that means reducing our emissions by eighty percent, maybe even more by 2050.

就美國而言，也就是在西元2050年前排放量必須降低80%以上。

Eighty percent!

天哪！80%！

Now the problem is that most of our global economy runs on burning fossil fuels, which releases carbon.

現在的問題是，我們的全球經濟大部分是仰賴燃燒化石燃料來運作，而化石燃料會釋放碳。

The factories that make all our stuff, the ships and trucks that carry it around the world, our cars and buildings and appliances, and just about everything.

替我們製造一切用品的工廠，運送到世界各地的船隻和貨車。我們的汽車和大樓和電器，幾乎每樣東西都是。

So, how are we gonna reduce carbon eighty percent and not go back to living like Little House on the Prairie?

那麼我們該怎麼減少80%的碳，而又不需要回到如《大草原之家》的生活呢？

Well, these Cap and Trade guys are saying that a new carbon stock market is the best way to get it done.

總量管制與交易制度提倡者說，全新的碳股票市場是達到這個目的的最佳方式。

The first step would be getting governments around the world to agree on a yearly limit on carbon emissions. That's the "cap."

第一步就是讓各國政府在每年的碳排放量限額上達成共識，這就是「總量管制」。

I think that part is great.

我認為這想法非常棒。

So how do they wanna ensure that carbon emissions stay under the cap?

那麼他們要如何確保碳排放量能維持在限額內呢？

Well, governments would distribute a certain amount of permits to pollute.

政府會分配某個數量的碳排放權。

Every year there would be fewer and fewer permits as we follow the cap to our goal.

當我們跟著管制總量來達成目標時，每年的碳排放許可會愈來愈少。

Innovative companies will get on board, building clean alternatives and getting more efficient.

創新公司會加入，發展乾淨的的替代能源，以及提升效率。

As permits get scarcer, they would also become more valuable.

隨著碳許可愈來愈稀少，它們也會變得愈來愈有價值。

So naturally, companies who have extra will want to sell them to companies who need them.

所以自然而然地，有多餘碳許可的公司就會想把它們賣給需要更多額度的公司。

That's where trading comes in.

於是就有了交易。

The logic is that as long as we stay under the cap, it doesn't matter who pollutes and who innovates.

其中的邏輯是，只要我們能維持在限額下的話，不管是誰在污染或誰在創新都沒有關係。

We'll meet our climate deadline, avoiding catastrophe,

我們將會達到我們為改善氣候所設下目標期限，並避開災難。

and oh yeah, these guys take their fee as they broker this multi-trillion dollar carbon racket, I mean, market.

而且別忘了，這些人在仲介這個價值數兆美元的碳交易勾當時還會順便賺走一筆費用，我是說碳市場。

Save the planet, get rich, what's not to like?

拯救地球賺大錢，誰不喜歡呢？

Some of my friends who really care about our future support cap and trade.

我有些朋友真的很關心我們的未來，所以他們支持總量管制與交易制度。

A lot of environmental groups that I respect, do too.

還有許多我尊敬的環保團體也支持。

They know it's not a perfect solution, and they don't love the idea of turning our planet's future over to these guys,

他們知道這並非完美的解決方式，也不喜歡把我們的地球交給這些人管理。

but they think that it is an important first step and that it's better than nothing.

這是很重要的第一步，而且總比什麼都不做還要好。

I am not so sure, and I'm not the only one.

我並不怎麼確定，我並非是唯一這麼想的人。

A growing movement of scientists, students, farmers, and forward-thinking business people are all saying, "Wait a minute!"

有愈來愈多的科學家、學生、農夫和思想前衛的商業人士都在說「等一等」。

In fact, even the economists who invented the cap and trade system to deal with simpler problems like fertilizer pollution and sulfur dioxide, they say cap and trade will never work for climate change.

事實上，甚至連為了處理像肥料污染和二氧化硫等較簡單問題，而發明總量管制和交易制的經濟學家，他們都認為總量管制和交易制對氣候變遷沒有效果。

Here's why I think they're right.

以下的理由讓我認為他們是對的。

When it comes to any kind of financial scam,

當談到各式各樣的金融詐欺案時，

like subprime mortgages or Bernie Madoff's pyramid scheme

像是次級房貸或馬多夫詐欺案。

the devil is always in the details,

駭人之處總是在細節部份。

and there are a lot of devils in the details of the cap and trade proposals on the table.

而且檯面上的總量控制和交易制的提案裡，就有許多藏在細節裡的魔鬼。

Devil number one is known as Free Permits,

魔鬼一號，就是免費碳權。

which is why some people call this system Cap and Giveaway.

這就是為什麼有些人稱這個制度為「總量管制和贈送制度」。

In this scheme, industrial polluters will get the vast majority of these valuable permits for free.

在這個體制中，工業污染者能免費取得大部分的珍貴碳許可。

Free! The more they have been polluting, the more they get.

免費的耶！他們製造愈多的污染，就得到愈多。

It's like we're thanking them for creating this problem in the first place.

這根本就像是我們在感謝他們製造出這些問題。

In Europe they tried a Cap and Giveaway system, the price of the permits bounced around like crazy, energy costs jumped for consumers, and guess what?

歐洲就嘗試了總量管制和贈送制度，碳許可的價格因此有很大的波動，消費者的能源成本也跟著上升，你猜發生什麼事？

Carbon emissions actually went up!

碳排放量反而跟著上升！

The only part that did work was that the polluters made billions of dollars in extra profits.

唯一成功的地方是，污染者賺到了數十億美元的額外利潤。

MIT economists say the same thing would likely happen here in the U.S.

MIT經濟學家說美國也可能會發生同樣的事情。

Those billions come from our pockets.

那數十億美元的金錢來自我們的口袋。

A real solution would put that money to work stopping climate change.

而真正的解決方法，應該會把那些錢用在阻止氣候變遷上。

Instead of just giving permits away to polluters,

而非把碳權送給污染者。

we could sell them and use the money to build a clean energy economy,

我們其實可以賣給他們，然後把錢用來建造乾淨的能源經濟。

or give citizens a dividend to help pay for higher fuel prices while we transition to that clean energy economy,

或發紅利給市民，在我們轉型為乾淨能源經濟的期間，協助他們支付上升的燃料價格。

or share it with those most harmed by climate change.

或是分給受氣候變遷傷害最嚴重的人。

Some people call this paying our ecological debt.

有些人稱之為償付我們的生態債。

Since we in the richest countries released the most carbon for centuries and lived a pretty comfy lifestyle in the process,

由於住在最富裕國家中的我們，幾個世紀以來釋放出最多的碳，同時又過著相當舒適的生活方式。

don't we have a responsibility to help those most harmed?

難道我們沒有責任幫助那些，受到最多傷害的人嗎？

It's like we had a big party, didn't invite our neighbors, and then stuck 'em with the clean-up bill.

這就好比說我們舉辦一場大型派對，卻沒邀請我們的鄰居，然後再把收拾殘局的帳單丟給他們付。

It's just not cool.

實在很不酷。

Did you know that in the next century, because of the changing climate, whole island nations could end up underwater?

你知不知道到了下個世紀，所有島嶼國家都會因為氣候變遷而降到海平面之下。

And the UN says 9 out of 10 African farmers could lose their ability to grow food.

聯合國還說非洲農夫中，十個有九個會失去他們農作的能力。

Now, wouldn't a real solution benefit these people instead of just the polluters?

真正的解決方法應該是要讓這些人受益，而不是污染者，不是嗎？

Devil number two is called Offsetting.

第二項駭人之處叫做抵減。

Offset permits are created when a company supposedly removes or reduces carbon.

假設一家公司移除或降低碳數量，這時候就會產生「抵減」的碳許可。

They then get a permit which can be sold to a polluter who wants permission to emit more carbon.

然後他們就可以把取得的抵減碳權賣給想要釋放更多碳的污染者。

In theory, one activity offsets the other.

理論上來說，一項活動可以抵銷另一項活動。

The danger with offsets is it's very hard to guarantee that real carbon is being removed to create the permit,

抵減的風險在於，我們很難保證是否真的有碳被移除，以產生抵減碳許可。

yet these permits are worth real money.

然而這些碳權卻是相當值錢的。

This creates a very dangerous incentive to create false offsets, to cheat.

這就創造了一個捏造抵減的危險誘因，於是就出現作弊。

Now in some cases cheating isn't the end of the world, but in this case, it is,

就某些情況而言，作弊並不是世界末日，但是就這個情況作弊卻是世界末日。

and already there's a lot of cheating going on.

而且目前早已有許多作弊的行為發生。

Like, in Indonesia, Sinar Mas corporation cut down indigenous forests, causing major ecological and cultural destruction.

好比說，印尼的Sinar Mas公司砍伐原始林，造成重大生態和文化浩劫。

Then, they took the wasteland they created and planted palm oil trees.

然後他們在他們造成的荒地上種植棕櫚樹。

Guess what they can get for it? Yup, offset permits.

你猜他們因此得到什麼呢？沒錯，就是抵減碳權。

Carbon out? No. Carbon in? You bet.

有減到碳嗎？才沒有。碳增加了嗎？當然！

Companies can even earn offsets for not doing anything at all.

甚至有公司可以什麼都不做，就取得抵減碳許可。

Like, operators of a polluting factory can claim they were planning to expand two-hundred percent,

譬如，污染工廠的經營人可以宣稱他們打算擴廠 200%。

but reduced the plans to expand only one-hundred percent.

但是後來把計畫縮減到只擴廠100%。

For that meaningless claim, they get offset permits, permits that they can sell to someone else to make more pollution!

由於這樣無意義的宣稱，他們獲得碳許可抵減，然後就可以把碳許可賣給別人，讓別人製造更多的污染！

That is so stupid!

這真是愚蠢！

The list of scams go on and on and many of the worst ones happen in the so-called Third World,

這種詐欺的項目數不清，而且許多最糟糕的詐欺情況都發生在所謂的第三世界裡。

where big business does whatever it wants, to whomever it wants,

在那邊大企業可以為所欲為、無視於人。

and with lax standards and regulations on offsets, they can get permits for just about anything.

而且由於抵減的標準和法規相當寬鬆，所以他們幾乎可以隨隨便便就獲得碳許可。

Devils one and two, Cap and Giveaway and Offsetting, make the system unfair and ineffective,

第一項和第二項駭人之處：總量管制和贈送制度以及抵減，都讓這個制度變得不公平且沒有效率。

but the last devil, which I call Distraction, makes it downright dangerous.

不過最後一項駭人之處，我稱為障眼法，更是使這一切變得危險。

You see, there are real solutions out there,

你瞧，目前早已有許多真正的解決方案。

but cap and trade with its loopholes and promises of riches have made many people forget all about them.

不過充滿漏洞而且保證可以賺錢的，總量管制和交易制度，早已讓許多人忘掉這些解決方案。

We're not even close to a global agreement on a carbon cap to begin with, and duh, that is the whole point of cap and trade,

世界各國甚至都還沒有對碳排放的總量達成共識，而這個量正是總量控制和交易制度的精髓。

but instead of hammering out a fair and strong deal, we're putting the cart before the horse and rushing off to trade schemes and offsets.

但是我們並未設計出公平且健全的方案，而是本末倒置地匆忙著手交易計畫和抵減。

With all the bogus offset projects, huge giveaways to polluters, and the failure to address the injustices of climate change,

有這麼多捏造的抵減計畫贈送給污染者的龐大碳權，還有無法處理氣候變遷的不公義之處。

do you think the Third World will get on board with a global cap? I doubt it.

你認為第三世界國家還會想參加全球碳總量管制嗎？我覺得不會。

If a cap and trade proposal is stopping us from actually capping carbon, it's a dangerous distraction.

如果總量管制和交易制度，其實會妨礙我們限制碳排放量時，那麼這種障眼法真的是相當危險。

We don't need to let these guys design the solution.

我們不需要讓這些人來設計解決方案。

We， us, our governments, we can make laws and do it ourselves.

我們，我們的政府，我們可以制定法律，一切自己來。

In my country, we already have a law: the Clean Air Act,

在美國已經有法律了，也就是清淨空氣法。

that confirms that carbon is a pollutant which our environmental agency is allowed to cap.

這項法規確認了碳是污染物，而且環保機關可以予以總量管制。

So what are we waiting for? Go EPA, go! Cap that carbon!

那麼我們到底在等什麼？ 環保署加油！把碳管一管吧！

Instead, a U.S. cap and trade law proposed in 2009 guts the Clean Air Act, leaving it to the market to fix the problem.

美國在2009年提出的一項總量管制和交易法案，排除掉清淨空氣法 把問題丟給市場去解決。

If a cap and trade proposal weakens our ability to make strong laws, it's a distraction.

如果總量管制和交易制度，削弱我們制定強力法律的能力，那麼它就是種障眼法。

Concerned citizens around the world need to speak out and demand that we redesign our economies away from fossil fuels,

世界各地關心這個議題的公民，需要說出他們想法和要求，我們要重新設計經濟架構遠離化石燃料。

but cap and trade makes citizens think everything will be okay,

不過總量管制和交易制度會讓這些公民認為一切沒事。

if we just drive a little less, change our light bulbs, and let these guys do the rest.

只要我們少開點車，換燈泡，並且讓這些人處理其它事情就好。

If cap and trade creates a false sense of progress, it's a dangerous distraction.

如果總量管制和交易制度製造出進步的錯覺，這就是危險的障眼法。

These cap and trade proposals are mostly about protecting business as usual.

這些總量管制和交易制度的提案，絕大多數是在保護一如往常的作法。

Right now, the U.S. subsidizes fossil fuels at more than twice the rate of renewables.

目前美國補助化石燃料的費率，是再生能源價格的兩倍。

What? We shouldn't be subsidizing fossil fuels at all!

這是怎麼回事？我們根本不該補助化石燃料！

These guys don't seem to realize that the simplest way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere is to leave it safely in the ground.

這些人似乎不瞭解不要讓碳進入大氣層的最簡單方法，就是讓碳安全地待在地底下就好。

U.S. congressman, Rick Boucher, a well-known friend of the coal industry voted for cap and trade.

美國國會議員Rick Boucher是相當知名的煤炭工業好友，他投票支持總量管制和交易制度。

He said it "strengthens the case for utilities to continue to use coal."

他說：「這有助於電力事業繼續使用煤炭。」

No law that encourages coal use can stop climate change. Period.

鼓勵使用煤炭的法律，絕對無法阻止氣候變遷，事實就是這樣。

Solid caps, strong laws, citizen action, and carbon fees to pay off ecological debt,

確實的總量管制、強有力的法律、公民行動、碳稅（費） 以便償還生態債。

and create a clean energy economy, that's how we can save our future.

並建立乾淨能源經濟，這就是我們拯救未來的方法。

The next time someone tells you that Cap and Trade is the best we're gonna get, don't believe them!

下次有人告訴你總量管制和交易制度是當前最棒的方法時，請不要相信他們！

Better yet, talk to them. They probably want a future safe from climate change too.

最好是，你要告訴他們，他們大概也希望他們的未來能夠不受氣候變遷威脅。

Maybe they've just forgotten that you can only compromise to a point before a solution isn't really a solution.

或許他們只是忘記，妥協也要有其限度，不能讓解決方案，變得無法真正解決問題。

Look, I know we'd love to sacrifice nothing, save the planet and get rich doing it.

我知道我們都希望不必犧牲， 就可以拯救地球，同時還能賺錢。

But get real! This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.

但是請醒醒吧！ 這是人類有史以來，所面臨的最大危機。

We can't solve it with the mindset, their mindset, that got us into this mess.

我們想解決問題的話，就不能有這種心態 或者說那些人的心態，就是這種心態讓我們掉進這淌混水。

We need something new. It won't be easy, but it's time we dreamed bigger.

我們需要全新的作法，雖然這麼做並不容易，但是我們應該要把夢做大。

It's time to design a climate solution that will really work!

應該要設計出真正有效的氣候解決方案，而且現在正是時候。