We lived on less than a dollar a day

我成長於密蘇里州的一個小農場

for about 15 years.

大概有15年的時間

I got a scholarship, went to university,

我們一天的花費少於一塊美金

studied international agriculture, studied anthropology,

我拿到獎學金，去上大學

and decided I was going to give back.

學習國際農業學跟人類學

I was going to work with small farmers.

我決定要回饋

I was going to help alleviate poverty.

我想跟小農們一起工作

I was going to work on international development,

想幫助消滅貧窮

and then I took a turn

想致力於國際發展

and ended up here.

然而，最後我轉了個彎

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

落腳於此

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

不過，如果你拿到博士學位，不想教書

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

不見得會像我這樣

You could be in New York.

這是個人選擇。你也許到頭來去開計程車

What I found was,

也許會待在紐約

I started working with refugees and famine victims --

而我則是

small farmers, all, or nearly all --

開始跟難民及饑民一起工作

who had been dispossessed and displaced.

包括小農，及其他所有

Now, what I'd been trained to do

一無所有無家可歸的人

was methodological research on such people.

我所接受的訓練

So I did it: I found out how many women

為研究這些人的方法學

had been raped en route to these camps.

我曾研究有多少女性

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

在前往難民營的途上被強暴

how many family members had been killed.

有多少人坐過牢

I assessed how long they were going to stay

多少家族成員被殺

and how much it would take to feed them.

分析這些人將待多久

And I got really good at predicting

而我們需要多少食物才能餵飽他們

how many body bags you would need

這讓我變得非常擅長於預測

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

我們將需要多少屍袋

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

來處理將死於難民營中的人

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

這是神的工作，而不是我的

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

這不是我該做的事

in 1988.

在1988年，我去了死之華合唱團

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

在雨林辦的慈善演唱會

His name was Ben.

我在那遇到相片左邊的這位仁兄

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

他叫做Ben

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

他問：「我該怎麼做，才能拯救雨林呢？」

"I make ice cream."

我說：「這個嘛，Ben，你是做什麼的？」

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

「我做冰淇淋。」

a rainforest ice cream.

我說：「嗯，你一定得做個

And you've got to use nuts from the rainforests

雨林口味的冰淇淋

to show that forests are worth more as forests

用雨林特產的堅果

than they are as pasture."

來展現雨林的價值

He said, "Okay."

不僅在它的生產能力而已。」

Within a year,

他說：「好。」

Rainforest Crunch was on the shelves.

一年內

It was a great success.

「雨林堅果」上架了

We did our first million-dollars-worth of trade

產品空前的成功

by buying on 30 days and selling on 21.

我們靠著每月貸款，在最後一周銷貨

That gets your adrenaline going.

賺進我們第一個一百萬的交易

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

這真是非常刺激

because we were credit-worthy at that point.

接著，因為此時我們有能力還款

We had 15 to 20, maybe 22 percent

我們貸了450萬美金

of the global Brazil-nut market.

攻下15%到20%，也許是22%

We paid two to three times more than anybody else.

的全球巴西豆市場

Everybody else raised their prices to the gatherers of Brazil nuts

我們比別的買家出價高出兩三倍

because we would buy it otherwise.

其他人也跟進出高價

A great success.

不然就會被我們買走

50 companies signed up, 200 products came out,

這策略大為成功

generated 100 million in sales.

有五十間公司簽約合作，推出兩百項產品

It failed.

賺進一億美金的利潤

Why did it fail?

然而我們到底還是失敗了

Because the people who were gathering Brazil nuts

為什麼呢？

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

因為採收巴西豆的人

And the people who made money from Brazil nuts

跟砍伐雨林的人不同

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

而靠著巴西豆賺錢的人

We were attacking the wrong driver.

也跟靠砍雨林賺錢的人不同

We needed to be working on beef.

所以，我們找錯對象了

We needed to be working on lumber.

我們得解決牛肉的問題

We needed to be working on soy --

我們得解決伐木的問題

things that we were not focused on.

我們得解決黃豆的問題

So let's go back to Sudan.

這些我們沒有注意到的問題

I often talk to refugees:

回到蘇丹

"Why was it that the West didn't realize

我常跟難民們說

that famines are caused by policies and politics,

西方國家的人並不明白

not by weather?"

饑荒其實是政治和政策問題

And this farmer said to me, one day,

而不是氣候問題

something that was very profound.

有天，有個農夫跟我提了個

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

相當卓越的觀點

(Laughter)

他說：「你不能叫醒一個正在假寐的人。」

Okay. Fast forward.

（笑）

We live on a planet.

更進一步來說

There's just one of them.

我們住在這個星球上

We've got to wake up to the fact

眾多星球裡獨一無二的一個

that we don't have any more

我們得明白這個事實：

and that this is a finite planet.

除了這資源有限的地球外

We know the limits of the resources we have.

我們沒有別的星球了

We may be able to use them differently.

我們得明白，我們手上的資源有限

We may have some innovative, new ideas.

我們也許能以不同方式使用資源

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

就算我們有新想法，創造新資源

There's no more of it.

但大致來說，資源就是這麼多

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

沒別的了

Population times consumption

有個基礎公式是我們無可避免：

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

人口數跟資源消耗的乘積

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

必須與這星球的資源量有相關性

Our work shows that we're living

而目前，這兩者並不相當

at about 1.3 planets.

研究顯示，我們消耗的資源

Since 1990,

為1.3倍個地球

we crossed the line

從1990年起

of being in a sustainable relationship to the planet.

我們就越過那條

Now we're at 1.3.

跟這個星球維持永續關係的線

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

資源消耗量是地球的1.3倍

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

如果我們是農夫，我們已在殺雞取卵

This is where we stand today.

若是銀行家，我們本金已開始虧損，而非靠利息過日子

A lot of people like to point

這是我們的現況

to some place else as the cause of the problem.

有很多人總是把問題

It's always population growth.

歸咎於其他的徵結

Population growth's important,

像是人口成長

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

人口成長是重要原因

So when the average American

但每個人的消耗量也很重要

consumes 43 times as much

當美國人生活的

as the average African,

平均消耗量為

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

非洲人的43倍時

It's not just about population,

消耗的確是個問題

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

不光是人口數

But it's not just about people;

也不光是別人的問題，問題是大家的

it's about lifestyles.

這也不光是人的問題

There's very good evidence --

問題在於生活方式

again, we don't necessarily have

有證據顯示─

a peer-reviewed methodology

關於這點，我們還沒有

that's bulletproof yet --

經同儕審查的調查方法

but there's very good evidence

來駁回反對意見─

that the average cat in Europe

但是，有相當不錯的證據顯示

has a larger environmental footprint in its lifetime

歐洲的貓其一生

than the average African.

留下的環境足跡

You think that's not an issue going forward?

比其非洲同類高

You think that's not a question

你還認為這不是進行中的問題嗎？

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

你還認為這樣的問題不足以讓我們質疑

Let's go back and visit our equation.

我們該如何使用地球資源嗎？

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

回到之前提到的公式

They were consuming what they were consuming --

在2000年，地球上有60億人口

let's say one unit of consumption each.

他們消費的消費品恆定

We have six billion units of consumption.

以每個人的消費量為一單位

By 2050,

全世界的消費量則為60億單位

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

在2050年

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

所有的科學家都同意，人口數將來到90億大關

scientists, again, agree --

而此時的消費量將為現在的兩倍

because income is going to grow in developing countries

科學家們也同意這點

five times what it is today --

因為開發中國家的人民收入將為

on global average, about [2.9].

今日的五倍

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

全球平均消費量達今日的3倍

Who have you heard talking lately

這讓全球總消費為180億個消費單位

that's said we have to triple production

誰最近聽過一個演講告訴你

of goods and services?

我們的食物產量和服務量

But that's what the math says.

必須增加三倍？

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

這僅只是數學而已

We can get productivity up.

我們沒辦法辦到

We can get efficiency up.

我們能夠增加食物產量

But we've also got to get consumption down.

我們可以增加產出效率

We need to use less

但其實我們應該減少消費量

to make more.

必須用更少的

And then we need to use less again.

原料來生產

And then we need to consume less.

我們使用的資源得比今日少

All of those things are part of that equation.

我們得消費得更少

But it basically raises a fundamental question:

這些全是那個公式的一部分

should consumers have a choice

然而，伴隨而來的是一個根本問題：

about sustainability, about sustainable products?

消費者有永續發展、

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

永續生存的相關產品可選擇嗎？

sitting next to one that isn't,

架上擺了永續、不永續的兩種產品時，

or should all the products on the shelf be sustainable?

你會選擇永續商品嗎？

If they should all be sustainable on a finite planet,

或是架上所有的商品都得是永續商品？

how do you make that happen?

在這個資源有限的地球上，該怎麼做

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

才能讓所有商品都是永續商品？

Okay, so let's be generous.

在美國，消費者花1.8秒決定買什麼

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

標準放寬一點

How do you evaluate all the scientific data

假設歐洲人花3.5秒做決定

around a product,

我們該怎麼評估一項產品的

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

所有科學資訊

How do you get informed?

產品數據每週、甚至是每日變動

You don't.

我們該怎麼獲得這樣的資料呢？

Here's a little question.

這是做不到的

From a greenhouse gas perspective,

還有個小問題

is lamb produced in the U.K.

從溫室氣體排放的角度來說

better than lamb produced in New Zealand,

在英國養羊

frozen and shipped to the U.K.?

會比在紐西蘭養

Is a bad feeder lot operation for beef

最後再冷凍運送到英國好嗎？

better or worse than

一個餵牛吃飼料的糟糕農場

a bad grazing operation for beef?

和一個餵牛吃草的糟糕農場相比

Do organic potatoes

誰比較好？

actually have fewer toxic chemicals

有機馬鈴薯的生產過程

used to produce them

會比傳統種植方式

than conventional potatoes?

使用更少的

In every single case,

有毒化學物嗎？

the answer is "it depends."

這些問題的答案

It depends on who produced it and how,

都是「看情況」

in every single instance.

依照作物是由誰種出、如何種出

And there are many others.

答案就不同

How is a consumer going to walk through this minefield?

還有很多其他的情況

They're not.

像是：消費者如何避開這些地雷？

They may have a lot of opinions about it,

才不呢

but they're not going to be terribly informed.

消費者或許有很多選擇

Sustainability has got to be a pre-competitive issue.

可是他們得到的訊息卻嚴重不足

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

永續發展得是個異業結盟的議題

And we need collusion.

這得是我們所有人共同關心的議題

We need groups to work together that never have.

我們需要串謀

We need Cargill to work with Bunge.

讓從未合作過的廠商結盟

We need Coke to work with Pepsi.

像是食品業的Cargill跟Bunge

We need Oxford to work with Cambridge.

飲料業的可口可樂跟百事可樂

We need Greenpeace to work with WWF.

互為死對頭的劍橋跟牛津大學

Everybody's got to work together --

綠色和平組織(環保團體)跟世界自然基金會

China and the U.S.

所有的人都必須合作

We need to begin to manage this planet

包括中國和美國

as if our life depended on it,

我們得開始處理地球的問題

because it does,

因為這是我們賴以維生的星球

it fundamentally does.

事情就是這樣

But we can't do everything.

從根本來說就是這樣

Even if we get everybody working on it,

但是我們也不是什麼都攬在身上

we've got to be strategic.

即使我們說服所有人共同解決問題

We need to focus on the where,

我們必須有策略

the what and the who.

我們必須專注於問題在哪、

So, the where:

問題是什麼、還有由誰來解決

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

關於「問題在哪」這點：

These are the places that are the richest in biodiversity

我們已知全球有35個地點需要保護

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

這些都是生物多樣性最豐富、

We have to work in these places.

且對於生態系統功能很重要的地方

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

我們得解決這些地點的問題

of preserving biodiversity as we know it.

眾所周知，我們得保護這些地點

We looked at the threats to these places.

迫切希望有機會拯救當地的生物多樣性

These are the 15 commodities

讓我們來看看是哪些因素威脅其環境：

that fundamentally pose the biggest threats

圖上的15個商品

to these places

根本上是這些地區最大的威脅

because of deforestation,

因為其製程造成的

soil loss, water use, pesticide use,

去雨林化、土壤流失、

over-fishing, etc.

灌溉、殺蟲劑的使用

So we've got 35 places,

跟過漁等

we've got 15 priority commodities,

所以，我們有35個危險區域、

who do we work with

15個商品

to change the way those commodities are produced?

我們該找誰一起來

Are we going to work with 6.9 billion consumers?

改變我們製造這些商品的流程？

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

我們需要69億名消費者的合作嗎？

350 major languages --

這牽涉到7000種語言

a lot of work there.

350種主要語言

I don't see anybody actually being able

實行起來很費力

to do that very effectively.

我不知道有誰真能

Are we going to work with 1.5 billion producers?

有效率的達成這件事

Again, a daunting task.

還是，我們跟15億生產者合作呢？

There must be a better way.

一樣，似乎是個不可能的任務

300 to 500 companies

應該有更好的方法

control 70 percent or more

有300到500家公司

of the trade of each of the 15 commodities

控制這15項商品

that we've identified as the most significant.

七成以上的交易

If we work with those, if we change those companies

我們認為這些公司造成的影響最為顯著

and the way they do business,

如果我們跟他們合作，改變這些公司

then the rest will happen automatically.

跟公司從商的模式

So, we went through our 15 commodities.

剩下的會自動自發改變

This is nine of them.

一項一項研究這15項商品

We lined them up side-by-side,

其中有9個

and we put the names of the companies that work

我們擺在一起看

on each of those.

註明是哪些公司

And if you go through the first 25 or 30 names

製造它們的

of each of the commodities,

當你看了25-30家

what you begin to see is,