I'm not going to talk about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" --

我想和大家談的是地球上最嚴重的問題。

probably that's also a good choice.

我不會談到＂多疑的環境保護論者＂這本書

(Laughter)

雖然那也是不錯的選擇。

But I am going talk about: what are the big problems in the world?

（笑聲）

And I must say, before I go on, I should ask every one of you

不過我要談的是，何謂地球上最嚴重的問題？

to try and get out pen and paper

在我開始之前，必須說的是，我先請在座的每一位

because I'm actually going to ask you to help me to look at how we do that.

拿出筆跟紙

So get out your pen and paper.

因為我將請各位和我一起來找找我們所要的答案

Bottom line is, there is a lot of problems out there in the world.

所以請拿出筆和紙

I'm just going to list some of them.

最重要的是這世界上有很多的問題

There are 800 million people starving.

我來舉些例子說明

There's a billion people without clean drinking water.

全球有八億人口處於飢餓當中

Two billion people without sanitation.

十億人口沒有乾淨的水喝

There are several million people dying of HIV and AIDS.

二十億人口沒有基本衛生措施

The lists go on and on.

幾百萬的人口因感染愛滋病毒和愛滋病而死亡

There's two billions of people who will be severely affected by climate change -- so on.

有太多的例子列舉不完

There are many, many problems out there.

全球有二十億人口嚴重受到氣候變遷的影響－－等等

In an ideal world, we would solve them all, but we don't.

有許多許多的問題

We don't actually solve all problems.

在一個完美的世界，我們會解決所有的問題，可是實際上我們不會。

And if we do not, the question I think we need to ask ourselves --

現實世界裡我們不會解決所有的問題。

and that's why it's on the economy session -- is to say,

那麼如果我們不會，我想我們該問自己的是－－

if we don't do all things, we really have to start asking ourselves,

這也是為什麼這場演講被安排在經濟議題的時段

which ones should we solve first?

既然我們無法解決所有問題，我們應該開始自我省察

And that's the question I'd like to ask you.

我們應該先解決哪些問題？

If we had say, 50 billion dollars over the next four years to spend

這是今天我要問大家的問題

to do good in this world, where should we spend it?

假設如果我們有500億美元，能夠在未來四年

We identified 10 of the biggest challenges in the world,

可以為這世界做些事，這些錢該用在哪裡?

and I will just briefly read them:

我們找出十項地球所面臨最嚴重的挑戰

climate change, communicable diseases, conflicts, education,

我很快的念出來。

financial instability, governance and corruption,

氣候變遷，傳染疾病，衝突

malnutrition and hunger, population migration,

金融波動，政府治理，貪汙

sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers.

營養失調及饑荒，人口遷移

We believe that these in many ways

衛生及水源，經濟資助及貿易保護

encompass the biggest problems in the world.

我們相信在很多的地方

The obvious question would be to ask,

涵蓋全球最嚴重的問題

what do you think are the biggest things?

我們要問的是

Where should we start on solving these problems?

哪些是最重要的?

But that's a wrong problem to ask.

我們該從哪些問題開始解決？

That was actually the problem that was asked in Davos in January.

不過這問題問得不對

But of course, there's a problem in asking people to focus on problems.

今年一月這個問題早在瑞士達沃斯已被提出

Because we can't solve problems.

當然，把注意力集中在問題上，這本身就是個問題。

Surely the biggest problem we have in the world is that we all die.

因為總是有解決不了的問題。

But we don't have a technology to solve that, right?

我們要面對的最大問題就是我們都會死

So the point is not to prioritize problems,

但卻沒有任何科技可以解決這問題，是吧？

but the point is to prioritize solutions to problems.

因此重點不在於為問題訂出優先次序

And that would be -- of course that gets a little more complicated.

而是為解決方法訂出優先次序

To climate change that would be like Kyoto.

那就是說--當然事情沒有那麼簡單

To communicable diseases, it might be health clinics or mosquito nets.

氣候變遷的解決方法可能是京都協議

To conflicts, it would be U.N.'s peacekeeping forces, and so on.

傳染病的解決方法可能是醫療診所或蚊帳

The point that I would like to ask you to try to do,

衝突的解決方法可能是聯合國維和部隊等等。

is just in 30 seconds -- and I know this is in a sense

我想請大家一起嘗試做的是

an impossible task -- write down what you think

請在三十秒內－我知道這幾乎是

is probably some of the top priorities.

不可能的任務－寫出你認為

And also -- and that's, of course, where economics gets evil --

應該最優先著手的項目

to put down what are the things we should not do, first.

還有－這就是為什麼經濟學是很殘酷的--

What should be at the bottom of the list?

我們得列出哪些事是不需要最先被處理的

Please, just take 30 seconds, perhaps talk to your neighbor,

哪些事是最後要處理的？

and just figure out what should be the top priorities

請你用三十秒的時間，或許和旁邊的人討論

and the bottom priorities of the solutions that we have

想想我們有哪些解決方法

to the world's biggest issues.

與進行的優先次序來面對

The amazing part of this process -- and of course, I mean,

世界上最嚴重的問題

I would love to -- I only have 18 minutes,

這過程最奇妙的是－－當然

I've already given you quite a substantial amount of my time, right?

我很樂意－但我只有十八分鐘

I'd love to go into, and get you to think about this process,

我已分給大家相當多的時間，是麼？

and that's actually what we did.

我想引導大家思考這個過程

And I also strongly encourage you,

這就是我們所做的

and I'm sure we'll also have these discussions afterwards,

同時我也請大家認真想想

to think about, how do we actually prioritize?

我相信以後也會有類似的討論

Of course, you have to ask yourself,

思考實際上我們如何訂定這先後順序？

why on Earth was such a list never done before?

當然各位也要問問自己

And one reason is that prioritization is incredibly uncomfortable.

到底為什麼這樣的清單從來沒有人做過？

Nobody wants to do this.

其中一個原因是優先順序會讓人感到極度不適

Of course, every organization would love to be on the top of such a list.

沒人想要這麼做

But every organization would also hate to be not on the top of the list.

顯而易見的，每個組織都想成為清單上的最佳選項

And since there are many more not-number-one spots on the list

卻更不想成為清單上的非首要選項

than there is number ones, it makes perfect sense

既然清單上非首要的項目，遠比首要項目

not to want to do such a list.

要來得多，理所當然地

We've had the U.N. for almost 60 years,

沒有人想要做這清單

yet we've never actually made a fundamental list

聯合國成立了快六十年

of all the big things that we can do in the world,

我們卻從未確實地做一份基本的清單

and said, which of them should we do first?

列出我們可以為世界做的所有重要事情

So it doesn't mean that we are not prioritizing --

也就是說，哪些是我們應該先做的？

any decision is a prioritization, so of course we are still prioritizing,

這不是說我們沒有決定優先次序

if only implicitly -- and that's unlikely to be as good

任何決定都包含了優先順序，所以我們仍然是決定了

as if we actually did the prioritization,

假如有可能的話－－有很高的可能性是，

and went in and talked about it.

沒有我們真正的訂出先後順序

So what I'm proposing is really to say that we have,

坦白的說出來得好。

for a very long time, had a situation when we've had a menu of choices.

所以我要提議的，是我們長久以來

There are many, many things we can do out there,

在面對狀況時已有一張清單可供我們選擇

but we've not had the prices, nor the sizes.

我們可以做非常多的事

We have not had an idea.

但如果我們沒有參考的數值或規模

Imagine going into a restaurant and getting this big menu card,

是不會有什麼想法的。

but you have no idea what the price is.

想像一下我們走進一家餐廳，拿起菜單

You know, you have a pizza; you've no idea what the price is.

卻不知道價錢

It could be at one dollar; it could be 1,000 dollars.

你想要個披薩，卻不知道多少錢

It could be a family-size pizza;

有可能是一塊錢，有可能是一千塊錢

it could be a very individual-size pizza, right?

有可能是個家庭號披薩

We'd like to know these things.

也有可能是一人份的披薩，不是麼？

And that is what the Copenhagen Consensus is really trying to do --

我們需要知道這些事情

to try to put prices on these issues.

而那就是哥本哈根共識想要做的

And so basically, this has been the Copenhagen Consensus' process.

就是為這些議題訂定策略

We got 30 of the world's best economists, three in each area.

基本上，這些都是哥本哈根共識的過程

So we have three of world's top economists write about climate change.

我們找來三十位世界最頂尖的經濟學家，每個領域有三位，

What can we do? What will be the cost

所以在氣候變遷的領域有三位最優秀的經濟學家

and what will be the benefit of that?

我們能做什麼？要付出哪些代價？

Likewise in communicable diseases.

又會得到哪些效益？

Three of the world's top experts saying, what can we do?

同樣的在傳染病的範疇中

What would be the price?

我們有三位世界最頂尖的專家告訴我們，該怎麼做？

What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome?

要付出什麼?

And so on.

我們該怎麼做，結果又是如何？

Then we had some of the world's top economists,

以此類推。

eight of the world's top economists, including three Nobel Laureates,

我們接著請世界最好的經濟學家

meet in Copenhagen in May 2004.

八位世界最佳經濟學家，包括三位諾貝爾獎得主，

We called them the "dream team."

2004年五月在哥本哈根相聚一堂

The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them

我們稱之為夢幻團隊

the Real Madrid of economics.

劍橋大學的督導長決定稱他們為

That works very well in Europe, but it doesn't really work over here.

經濟學的皇家馬德里隊

And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list.

在歐洲很適合，但在這裡似乎不太行得通

And then you ask, why economists?

他們基本上在做的是列出一張優先順序表

And of course, I'm very happy you asked that question -- (Laughter) --

然後你會問，那何必找經濟學家？

because that's a very good question.

當然，我很開心妳問這問題（笑聲）

The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria,

因為那是個非常好的問題

you ask a malaria expert.

重點在於，如果你想了解瘧疾，

If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist.

妳會找瘧疾專家

But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first,

如果你想了解氣候，你會諮詢氣候學家

you can't ask either of them, because that's not what they do.

但如果你想知道兩者之間，何者應優先處理

That is what economists do.

你不能問他們任何一方，因為這不是他們的專長

They prioritize.

那是經濟學家的工作

They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first,

負責制定優先次序。

and which one should we do afterwards?

他們為那些看起來挺擾人的項目制定優先順序，

So this is the list, and this is the one I'd like to share with you.

評估哪些先做，哪些該稍後進行？

Of course, you can also see it on the website,

因此這就是我要和大家分享的清單，

and we'll also talk about it more, I'm sure, as the day goes on.

當然你也可以在網路上看到

They basically came up with a list where they said

隨著時間我們也會更密集的談到

there were bad projects -- basically, projects

基本上他們完成了一份選單，

where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back.

上頭有包含一些不良項目，簡單來說，

Then there's fair projects, good projects and very good projects.

假設你投資了一塊錢，回收會小於一塊錢，

And of course, it's the very good projects we should start doing.

接著有些合理的項目，良好和優秀的項目

I'm going to go from backwards

當然我們應該先發展優秀項目

so that we end up with the best projects.

我會從清單的末尾開始

These were the bad projects.

把最後的留到最後。

As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change.

這些是不良項目

This offends a lot of people, and that's probably one of the things

可以看見清單最末是氣候變遷

where people will say I shouldn't come back, either.

這惹惱了許多人，那可能就是為什麼有些人會說

And I'd like to talk about that, because that's really curious.

我不應該再來。

Why is it it came up?

這個我需要說明一下，因為看起來很奇怪

And I'll actually also try to get back to this

為何是這樣？

because it's probably one of the things

我想要再回頭談談這件事

that we'll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

因為這可能是我們的清單中

The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto --

和你們的清單裡的項目不同之處

or doing something more than Kyoto -- is a bad deal

為什麼這些專家認為執行京都協議，

is simply because it's very inefficient.

或者做得比京都會議要更多－並不是個好主意

It's not saying that global warming is not happening.

原因很簡單，因為成效不彰

It's not saying that it's not a big problem.

並不是說地球暖化沒有發生

But it's saying that what we can do about it

也不是說問題不嚴重

is very little, at a very high cost.

而是說我們能做的

What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models,

並不多，代價很高

is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year.

這些專家基本上告訴我們，根據所有總體經濟學模組的平均估算

That's a substantial amount of money.

如果各國都同意執行京都協議，每年要花費大約一千五百億美元

That's two to three times the global development aid

這是筆龐大的數字

that we give the Third World every year.

大約是我們每年援助第三世界發展

Yet it would do very little good.

所花費的兩到三倍

All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100.

但仍舊沒太大的幫助

So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106.

所有的模組皆顯示這樣可以在二一零零年時將暖化問題延後六年

Which is a little good, but not very much good.

因此本來二一零零年在孟加拉發生的水災，可以延至二零一六年

So the idea here really is to say, well, we've spent a lot of money doing a little good.

是可以改善，但不是全面性的成效

And just to give you a sense of reference,

因此真正來講，我們花了很多錢，卻沒什麼成效。

the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount,

讓我給大家一些參考資料

for about 75 billion dollars a year,

根據聯合國的統計，只需使用一半的預算

we could solve all major basic problems in the world.

大約每年七百五十億美元

We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare

我們可以解決世界上所有重大問題

and education to every single human being on the planet.

我們可以為地球上的所有人類，提供乾淨飲用水，衛生措施，

So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount

基本醫療與教育措施。

on doing very little good?

所以我們捫心自問，我們真的要花兩倍的代價

Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good?

卻只能換來一點好處？

And that is really why it becomes a bad project.

或者只用一半的代價，達到出人意料的驚人成效？

It's not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't want to do it.

這也是氣候變遷計畫成效不彰。

But it's to say, when we don't, it's just simply not our first priority.

並不是說，如果我們有了這些錢，就不會去處理這個問題，

The fair projects -- notice I'm not going to comment on all these --

而是說，當我們沒有這些預算時，就不應該優先處理。

but communicable diseases, scale of basic health services -- just made it,

成效普通的計畫，我並不在這逐項評論，

simply because, yes, scale of basic health services is a great thing.

但傳染病，基本健康服務－可以進行。

It would do a lot of good, but it's also very, very costly.

原因在於，基本健康服務規模很大是件好事

Again, what it tells us is suddenly

會帶來很多效益，但是也相當昂貴。

we start thinking about both sides of the equation.

我要強調的是，這突然提醒我們

If you look at the good projects, a lot of sanitation and water projects came in.

該開始思考問題的兩面。

Again, sanitation and water is incredibly important,

接著來看成效不錯的計畫，像是衛生和飲用水計畫

but it also costs a lot of infrastructure.

這兩個計畫極為重要。

So I'd like to show you the top four priorities

也需要許多基本措施的建造

which should be at least the first ones that we deal with

我們來看看為首的四項優先順序

when we talk about how we should deal with the problems in the world.

哪些步驟是我們談到如何處理世界性問題時

The fourth best problem is malaria -- dealing with malaria.

必須優先處理的

The incidence of malaria is about a couple of [million] people get infected every year.

第四個要優先處理的是瘧疾－面對瘧疾

It might even cost up towards a percentage point of GDP

每年有幾百萬人因感染瘧疾而受影響

every year for affected nations.

對受影響的國家來說，每年所需的費用

If we invested about 13 billion dollars over the next four years,

可能激增至接近國民生產總值的百分之一

we could bring that incidence down to half.

如果我們在未來四年投資了一百三十億美元

We could avoid about 500,000 people dying,

我們可以把感染的人數減半

but perhaps more importantly, we could avoid about a [million] people

可以救回大約五十萬人的生命

getting infected every year.

但更重要的是，我們每年可以防止大約十億人

We would significantly increase their ability

感染這類的疾病。

to deal with many of the other problems that they have to deal with --

這會很顯著的提高他們

of course, in the long run, also to deal with global warming.

解決處理其它很多問題的能力。

This third best one was free trade.

當然，長遠來看，這包含了處理全球暖化的能力。

Basically, the model showed that if we could get free trade,

第三項要優先處理的是自由貿易。

and especially cut subsidies in the U.S. and Europe,

基本上，我們的經濟模組告訴我們，

we could basically enliven the global economy

如果我們有自由貿易，尤其是取消歐美國家的貿易津貼，

to an astounding number of about 2,400 billion dollars a year,

我們可以從根本活絡全球經濟。

half of which would accrue to the Third World.

每年可高達令人驚訝的兩萬四千億美元的數字。

Again, the point is to say that we could actually pull

半數會來自於第三世界。

two to three hundred million people out of poverty,

再者，我們可以確實的在兩到五年內

very radically fast, in about two to five years.

協助兩到三億的人口

That would be the third best thing we could do.

快速的脫離貧困。