I come at this question not as a green campaigner,

我提出這個問題， 不是因為我是環保人士，

in fact, I confess to be rather hopeless at recycling.

坦白說，我對垃圾回收 不報太大的希望。

I come at it as a professional observer of financial policy making

我是以一位專業財經政策制定 觀察家的身分，提出這個問題，

and someone that wonders how history will judge us.

也是一位想知道歷史將 如何評價我們的人。

One day,

總有一天，

this ring that belonged to my grandfather

這只屬於我爺爺的戒指，

will pass to my son, Charlie.

也會傳承到我兒子查理手上。

And I wonder what his generation

而我在想，他的時代，

and perhaps the one that follows

或他的下一代，

will make of the two lives this ring has worked.

會如何因為我和爺爺的 所做所為而改變？

My grandfather was a coal miner.

我的爺爺是一位煤礦礦工。

In his time,

在他的年代，

burning fossil fuels for energy and for allowing economies to develop

為了能源及經濟發展， 燃燒石化燃料的行為

was accepted.

是被广泛接受的。

We know now that that is not the case

現在大家都知道， 事實並非如此，

because of the greenhouse gases that coal produces.

因為燒煤會產生溫室 氣體。

But today,

但，如今，

I fear it's the industry in which I work that will be judged more harshly

我擔心我所工作的產業 將來會因為

because of its impact on the climate --

它沒有發揮對氣候變化的影響力 而遭受嚴厲地批判，

more harshly than my grandfather's industry, even.

甚至被批判得 比我爺爺的產業還慘。

I work, of course, in the banking industry,

當然，我從事的是銀行業，

which will be remembered for its crisis in 2008 --

而2008年銀行業所經歷的的金融危機 已然被載入史冊－－

a crisis that diverted the attention and finances of governments

正因为這個危機，政府轉移了 注意力與財政方向，

away from some really, really important promises,

讓一些原本相當，相當 重要的承諾都被忽視了，

like promises made at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009

例如 2009 年在哥本哈根 聯合國的氣候大會上

to mobilize 100 billion dollars a year

承諾每年要動用 的1000 億美金，

to help developing countries move away from burning fossil fuels

以幫助發展中國家 慢慢從燃燒石化燃料

and transition to using cleaner energy.

轉型到使用乾淨的能源。

That promise is already in jeopardy.

這個承諾已經陷入危機。

And that's a real problem,

而這是一個現實的問題，

because that transition to cleaner energy needs to happen

因為轉型到乾淨能源的這件事，

sooner rather than later.

需要盡早進行 而不能再拖延下去。

Firstly,

首先，

because greenhouse gases, once released,

因為，溫室氣體一旦排放出來，

stay in the atmosphere for decades.

它會停留在大氣層中好幾十年。

And secondly,

第二，

if a developing economy builds its power grid around fossil fuels today,

如果今天一個發展中的經濟體，一旦 建立了他們自己的石化燃料能源網路，

it's going to be way more costly to change later on.

之後想要改回來， 就得花更多的成本。

So for the climate,

所以，對氣候而言，

history may judge that the banking crisis happened

歷史也許會評斷

at just the wrong time.

我們的金融危機 只是發生的不是時候。

The story need not be this gloomy, though.

其實故事不需要這麼淒慘的。

Three years ago,

三年前，

I argued that governments could use the tools

我曾提出言論說過， 政府可以善用工具

deployed to save the financial system

拯救金融系統，

to meet other global challenges.

來迎接其它的全球挑戰。

And these arguments are getting stronger, not weaker, with time.

而這些言論隨著時間， 越來越強烈，越來越受到重視。

Let's take a brief reminder of what those tools looked like.

讓我們稍微回憶一下， 這些工具是長什麼樣子。

When the financial crisis hit in 2008,

當 2008 年的金融風暴來襲時，

the central banks of the US and UK

美國及英國的中央銀行，

began buying bonds issued by their own governments

開始購買他們自己政府 所發行的債劵，

in a policy known as "quantitative easing."

也就是大家所孰知的 「量化寬鬆 」政策。

Depending on what happens to those bonds when they mature,

當這些債劵到期時，看看當時的狀況， 再決定要不要繼續，

this is money printing by another name.

這只是另一種印錢的名義而已。

And boy, did they print.

而且天哪，他們真的印了。

The US alone created four trillion dollars' worth of its own currency.

光美國就印了將近四兆美金。

This was not done in isolation.

這不是單一國家做的事。

In a remarkable act of cooperation,

而是由 188 個會員國共同組成的

the 188 countries that make up the International Monetary Fund, the IMF,

國際貨幣基金組織 IMF 所做出的決定，

agreed to issue 250 billion dollars' worth of their own currency --

他們同意發行 2500 億美金 等值的貨幣，

the Special Drawing Right --

--也就是SDR「特別提款權」--

to boost reserves around the world.

來增加全球的貨幣儲備供給。

When the financial crisis moved to Europe,

當金融風暴移到歐洲後，

the European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi,

歐洲中央銀行行長， 馬里奧．德拉吉，

promised "to do whatever it takes."

也承諾要「不計代價」地 拯救金融市場。

And they did.

而他們真的做到了。

The Bank of Japan repeated those words -- that exact same commitment --

日本銀行也重複一樣的話 --完全一樣的承諾--

to do "whatever it takes" to reflate their economy.

「不計代價」地 要復甦他們的經濟。

In both cases,

這兩個案例中，

"whatever it takes" meant trillions of dollars more

「不計代價」就意味著， 這些好幾十億的印鈔票政策，

in money-printing policies that continue today.

會一直跟著我們走到今天。

What this shows

這表示，

is that when faced with some global challenges,

當面對一些全球性的挑戰時，

policy makers are able to act collectively, with urgency,

政策制定者們也會 緊急、共同地做出一些

and run the risks of unconventional policies like money printing.

非傳統式的高風險決策， 像是印鈔票。

So, let's go back to that original question:

所以，讓我們回到原來的問題上：

Can we print money for climate finance?

我們可以為氣候的 金融印鈔票嗎？

Three years ago,

三年前，

the idea of using money in this way was something of a taboo.

我們這樣用錢的方式 是一種不被允許的禁忌。

Once you break down and dismantle the idea

一旦你破壞了

that money is a finite resource,

「錢是有限資源」的原則，

governments can quickly get overwhelmed by demands from their people

接踵而来的民众诉求

to print more and more money for other causes:

将会迫使政府在各个方面印更多的钱，

education, health care, welfare --

比如教育、醫療照顧、社會福利--

even defense.

甚至是國防。

And there are some truly terrible historical examples of money printing --

而這樣的印錢方式，的確有 可怕的歷史案例可以借鑒

uncontrolled money printing --

--失控的鈔票列印--

leading to hyperinflation.

會導致通貨膨脹。

Think: Weimar Republic in 1930;

想想：1930 年的 威瑪共和國；

Zimbabwe more recently, in 2008,

近代 2008 年的辛巴威，

when the prices of basic goods like bread are doubling every day.

當時一些基本生活用品， 像是麵包，每天加倍地上漲。

But all of this is moving the public debate forward,

但這些所有事情的發展 推進了公開辯論的腳步，

so much so, that money printing for the people is now discussed openly

因此，為人民印錢， 現在已經可以公開地被討論，

in the financial media, and even in some political manifestos.

無論財經媒體，甚至一些 政黨的政策裡面都看得到。

But it's important the debate doesn't stop here,

但很重要的一點是，

with printing national currencies.

列印國際貨幣的爭論 不會就此停止，

Because climate change is a shared global problem,

因為氣候變遷是一個 全球共同的問題，

there are some really compelling reasons

這也是為什麼

why we should be printing that international currency

我們必須請 IMF

that's issued by the IMF,

發行國際貨幣來資助這件事，

to fund it.

其實也是萬不得已的。

The Special Drawing Right, or SDR,

「特別提款權」也就是 SDR，

is the IMF's electronic unit of account

是 IMF 的電子記帳單位，

that governments use to transfer funds amongst each other.

用來方便政府之間 帳戶金額的移轉。

Think of it as a peer-to-peer payment network,

想像一下，它就是 P2P 的網路付款方式，

like Bitcoin, but for governments.

像是比特幣，但，是政府之間在用的。

And it's truly global.

而且，它真的是全球性的。

Each of the 188 members of the IMF hold SDR quotas

188 個 IMF 會員國手上 都握有 SDR 的配額，

as part of their foreign exchange reserves.

做為他們部分的外匯存底。

These are national stores of wealth

這些是國際財富的儲藏室，

that countries keep to protect themselves against currency crises.

它可以讓國家持續保護 它們自己免於貨幣的危機。

And that global nature is why,

而這也是為什麼

at the height of the financial crisis in 2009,

在 2009 年金融海嘯的最高峰，

the IMF issued those extra 250 billion dollars --

IMF 又加碼多印了 2500 億美金--

because it served as a collective global action

因為這次集體的全球行動，

that safeguarded countries large and small in one fell swoop.

把大大小小的國家， 全部一次性地保護起來。

But here --

但這裡有一個

here's the intriguing part.

很耐人尋味的地方。

More than half of those extra SDRs that were printed in 2009 --

2009年，有超過半數的 SDRs

150 billion dollars' worth --

--價值1500億美金--

went to developed market countries who, for the most part,

跑到已開發國家的市場裏面，

have a modest need for these foreign exchange reserves,

因為大部分這些國家的外匯存底 都有一個小小的需求，

because they have flexible exchange rates.

它們需要較靈活的交換利率。

So those extra reserves that were printed in 2009,

所以，這些 2009 年印出來的鈔票，

in the end, for developed market countries at least,

最後跑到已開發國家市場了，

weren't really needed.

但他們根本不是真的需要這筆錢。

And they remain unused today.

所以他們保留到今天。

So here's an idea.

我這裡有一個想法。

As a first step,

第一步，

why don't we start spending those unused,

為什麼我們不把這些

those extra SDRs that were printed in 2009,

在 2009 年多印出來 還沒有使用的鈔票，

to combat climate change?

投入到對抗氣候變遷上呢？

They could, for example,

他們可以的，例如，

be used to buy bonds issued by the UN's Green Climate Fund.

利用這筆錢來買聯合國 綠色氣候基金會發行的債劵。

This was a fund created in 2009,

這是根據 2009 年哥本哈根的聯合國

following that climate agreement in Copenhagen.

氣候大會協議所成立的一個基金會。

And it was designed to channel funds towards developing countries

它是被設計用來 引渡氣候專案基金

to meet their climate projects.

到開發中國家的一個機構。

It's been one of the most successful funds of its type,

這是一個很典型的成功基金會，

raising almost 10 billion dollars.

他們已經舉債將近 100 億美金。

But if we use those extra SDRs that were issued,

但如果我們把這些多餘 發行的 SDRs 拿來使用，

it helps governments get back on track,

它可以幫助政府重回到軌道上，

to meet that promise of 100 billion dollars a year

來兌現政府因金融風暴而拖沓許久的

that was derailed by the financial crisis.

每年 1000 億美金的承諾。

It could also --

它也可以--

it could also serve as a test case.

也可以用它來做測試。

If the inflationary consequences of using SDRs in this way are benign,

如果用了這筆 SDRs 所造成的通膨後果是溫和的，

it could be used to justify

那它就可以用來評斷

the additional, extra issuance of SDRs, say, every five years,

比如，每五年額外發行的 SDRs 所造成的衝擊是否也是溫和的，

again, with the commitment

當然，這要已開發國家承諾

that developed-market countries would direct their share

會直接把新增加

of the new reserves

存底的分配額匯到

to the Green Climate Fund.

綠色氣候基金會。

Printing international money in this way has several advantages

用這樣印「國際鈔票」的方式

over printing national currencies.

比起直接印「國家鈔票」的方式， 多了很多的好處。

The first is it's really easy to argue

第一，花錢來減緩氣候變遷 對大家都有好處，

that spending money to mitigate climate change benefits everyone.

這一點大家不會有甚麼意見的。

No one section of society benefits from the printing press over another.

無論哪一國的印刷機印錢， 都沒有人可從中獲取額外的利益，

That problem of competing claims is mitigated.

爭相申請印錢的問題是很小的。

It's also fair to say

可以很公平地說，

that because it takes so many countries to agree to issue these extra SDRs,

這樣可以讓很多國家 同意發行額外的 SDRs，

it's highly unlikely that money printing would get out of control.

因為這樣印錢的方式 不太可能會不受控制。

What you end up with is a collective, global action

畢竟你最終是一個 全球的集體行為，

aimed -- and it's controlled global action --

一個大家目標一致 可控的集體行為，

aimed at a global good.

目的就是為了地球好。

And,

而且，

as we've learned with the money-printing schemes,

因為我們已經有印鈔票的經驗，

whatever concerns we have can be allayed by rules.

無論大家有甚麼顧慮， 都可以透過規則來排除。

So, for example,

例如，

the issuance of these extra SDRs every five years could be capped,

可以限制這些每五年額外發行的 國際貨幣 SDRs 的總金額 ，

such that this international currency is never more than five percent

不能超過

of global foreign exchange reserves.

全球外匯存底的5%。

That's important because it would allay

這很重要，因為這樣做 可以避免掉一些可笑的疑慮，

well, let's say, the ridiculous concerns that the US might have

比如說，

that the SDR could ever challenge the dollar's dominant role

有人會質疑這些 SDRs 會挑戰

in international finance.

美元在國際金融市場的主導地位。

And in fact,

而事實上，

I think the only thing that the SDR would likely steal from the dollar

我認為唯一可能發生的事就是，

under this scheme

SDR 在這個計畫裡下，可能會以 美元的計價方式來發行，

is its nickname, the "greenback."

也就是俗稱的「綠背」（美金）

Because even with that cap in place,

因為即使有限額的規定，

the IMF could have followed up its issuance --

國際貨幣基金組織 也會追蹤它的發行狀況--

its massive issuance of SDRs in 2009 --

包括 2009 年大量發行的 SDRs，

with a further 200 billion dollars of SDRs in 2014.

以及 2014 年追加 2000 億美金的 SDRs。

So hypothetically,

假設，

that would mean that developed countries could have contributed

如果這意味著，已開發國家需要

up to 300 billion dollars' worth of SDRs

貢獻價值 3000 億美金的 SDRs

to the Green Climate Fund.

到綠色氣候基金會。

That's 30 times what it has today.

這個數字是當今規模的 30 倍。

And you know,

你可能會覺得

as spectacular as that sounds,

這數字聽起來相當驚人，

it's only just beginning to look like "whatever it takes."

但這僅是「不計代價」 的剛開始而已。

And just to think what amazing things could be done with that money,

想一下這筆錢可以為我們 帶來甚麼驚豔的事，

consider this:

想一下這件事：

in 2009,

2009 年，

Norway promised one billion dollars of its reserves to Brazil

挪威答應，如果巴西 遵守森林砍伐的目標，

if they followed through on their goals on deforestation.

他們要給巴西 10 億 美金的外匯存底。

That program has since delivered a 70 percent reduction in deforestation

這個計畫在過去十年，

in the past decade.

已經減少 70% 的森林砍伐。

That's saving 3.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions,

也就是減少了 32 億噸

which is the equivalent of taking all American cars off the roads

的二氧化碳排放，

for three whole years.

相當於全美國汽車三年的排放量。

So what could we do

所以，如果也有其它300個像這樣的

with 300 other pay-for-performance climate projects like that,

「看表現付錢」的氣候專案，

organized on a global scale?

我們要如何以全球規模 的方式把它組織起來？

We could take cars off the roads for a generation.

我們可以減少一個 世代的汽車碳排。

So,

所以，

let's not quibble about whether we can afford to fund climate change.

讓我們不要再狡辯我們是否有能力 可以支付提供改善氣候變遷的資金。

The real question is:

真正的問題是：

Do we care enough about future generations

我們是否真的夠關心 我們未來的子子孫孫？

to take the very same policy risks we took to save the financial system?

並再次承擔類似拯救 金融系統時的政策風險？

After all,

畢竟，

we could do it,

我們做得到，

we did do it

我們也曾經做到，

and we are doing it today.

而我們今天就要開始做。

We must, must, must do "whatever it takes."

我們必須、必須、必須、 再次的「不計代價」。

Thank you.

謝謝各位！

(Applause)

（掌聲）