TED日本語 - パヴァン・スクデフ: 自然に値札をつけろ!


TED Talks(英語 日本語字幕付き動画)

TED日本語 - パヴァン・スクデフ: 自然に値札をつけろ!

TED Talks

Put a value on nature!
Pavan Sukhdev




I'm here to talk to you about the economic invisibility of nature. The bad news is that mother nature's back office isn't working yet, so those invoices don't get issued. But we need to do something about this problem. I began my life as a markets professional and continued to take an interest, but most of my recent effort has been looking at the value of what comes to human beings from nature, and which doesn't get priced by the markets.

A project called TEEB was started in 2007, and it was launched by a group of environment ministers of the G8+5. And their basic inspiration was a stern review of Lord Stern. They asked themselves a question: If economics could make such a convincing case for early action on climate change, well why can't the same be done for conservation? Why can't an equivalent case be made for nature? And the answer is: Yeah, it can. But it's not that straightforward. Biodiversity, the living fabric of this planet, is not a gas. It exists in many layers, ecosystems, species and genes across many scales -- international, national, local, community -- and doing for nature what Lord Stern and his team did for nature is not that easy.

And yet, we began. We began the project with an interim report, which quickly pulled together a lot of information that had been collected on the subject by many, many researchers. And amongst our compiled results was the startling revelation that, in fact, we were losing natural capital -- the benefits that flow from nature to us. We were losing it at an extraordinary rate -- in fact, of the order of two to four trillion dollars-worth of natural capital. This came out in 2008, which was, of course, around the time that the banking crisis had shown that we had lost financial capital of the order of two and a half trillion dollars. So this was comparable in size to that kind of loss. We then have gone on since to present for [ the ] international community, for governments, for local governments and for business and for people, for you and me, a whole slew of reports, which were presented at the U.N. last year, which address the economic invisibility of nature and describe what can be done to solve it.

What is this about? A picture that you're familiar with -- the Amazon rainforests. It's a massive store of carbon, it's an amazing store of biodiversity, but what people don't really know is this also is a rain factory. Because the northeastern trade winds, as they go over the Amazonas, effectively gather the water vapor. Something like 20 billion tons per day of water vapor is sucked up by the northeastern trade winds, and eventually precipitates in the form of rain across the La Plata Basin. This rainfall cycle, this rainfall factory, effectively feeds an agricultural economy of the order of 240 billion dollars-worth in Latin America. But the question arises: Okay, so how much do Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and indeed the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil pay for that vital input to that economy to the state of Amazonas, which produces that rainfall? And the answer is zilch, exactly zero. That's the economic invisibility of nature. That can't keep going on, because economic incentives and disincentives are very powerful. Economics has become the currency of policy. And unless we address this invisibility, we are going to get the results that we are seeing, which is a gradual degradation and loss of this valuable natural asset.

It's not just about the Amazonas, or indeed about rainforests. No matter what level you look at, whether it's at the ecosystem level or at the species level or at the genetic level, we see the same problem again and again. So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests at an ecosystem level. At the species level, it's been estimated that insect-based pollination, bees pollinating fruit and so on, is something like 190 billion dollars-worth. That's something like eight percent of the total agricultural output globally. It completely passes below the radar screen. But when did a bee actually ever give you an invoice? Or for that matter, if you look at the genetic level,60 percent of medicines were prospected, were found first as molecules in a rainforest or a reef. Once again, most of that doesn't get paid.

And that brings me to another aspect of this, which is, to whom should this get paid? That genetic material probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone, to a local community of poor people who parted with the knowledge that helped the researchers to find the molecule, which then became the medicine. They were the ones that didn't get paid. And if you look at the species level, you saw about fish. Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor, the artisanal fisher folk and those who fish for their own livelihoods, to feed their families. Something like a billion people depend on fish, the quantity of fish in the oceans. A billion people depend on fish for their main source for animal protein. And at this rate at which we are losing fish, it is a human problem of enormous dimensions, a health problem of a kind we haven't seen before. And finally, at the ecosystem level, whether it's flood prevention or drought control provided by the forests, or whether it is the ability of poor farmers to go out and gather leaf litter for their cattle and goats, or whether it's the ability of their wives to go and collect fuel wood from the forest, it is actually the poor who depend most on these ecosystem services.

We did estimates in our study that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia, even though ecosystem services -- these benefits that flow from nature to humanity for free -- they're not very big in percentage terms of GDP -- two,four,eight,10,15 percent -- but in these countries, if we measure how much they're worth to the poor, the answers are more like 45 percent,75 percent,90 percent. That's the difference. Because these are important benefits for the poor. And you can't really have a proper model for development if at the same time you're destroying or allowing the degradation of the very asset, the most important asset, which is your development asset, that is ecological infrastructure.

How bad can things get? Well here a picture of something called the mean species abundance. It's basically a measure of how many tigers, toads, ticks or whatever on average of biomass of various species are around. The green represents the percentage. If you start green, it's like 80 to 100 percent. If it's yellow, it's 40 to 60 percent. And these are percentages versus the original state, so to speak, the pre-industrial era,1750.

Now I'm going to show you how business as usual will affect this. And just watch the change in colors in India, China, Europe, sub-Saharan Africa as we move on and consume global biomass at a rate which is actually not going to be able to sustain us. See that again. The only places that remain green -- and that's not good news -- is, in fact, places like the Gobi Desert, like the tundra and like the Sahara. But that doesn't help because there were very few species and volume of biomass there in the first place. This is the challenge. The reason this is happening boils down, in my mind, to one basic problem, which is our inability to perceive the difference between public benefits and private profits. We tend to constantly ignore public wealth simply because it is in the common wealth, it's common goods.

And here's an example from Thailand where we found that, because the value of a mangrove is not that much -- it's about $ 600 over the life of nine years that this has been measured -- compared to its value as a shrimp farm, which is more like $ 9,600, there has been a gradual trend to deplete the mangroves and convert them to shrimp farms. But of course, if you look at exactly what those profits are, almost 8,000 of those dollars are, in fact, subsidies. So you compare the two sides of the coin and you find that it's more like 1,200 to 600. That's not that hard.

But on the other hand, if you start measuring, how much would it actually cost to restore the land of the shrimp farm back to productive use? Once salt deposition and chemical deposition has had its effects, that answer is more like $ 12,000 of cost. And if you see the benefits of the mangrove in terms of the storm protection and cyclone protection that you get and in terms of the fisheries, the fish nurseries, that provide fish for the poor, that answer is more like $ 11,000. So now look at the different lens. If you look at the lens of public wealth as against the lens of private profits, you get a completely different answer, which is clearly conservation makes more sense, and not destruction.

So is this just a story from South Thailand? Sorry, this is a global story. And here's what the same calculation looks like, which was done recently -- well I say recently, over the last 10 years -- by a group called TRUCOST. And they calculated for the top 3,000 corporations, what are the externalities? In other words, what are the costs of doing business as usual? This is not illegal stuff, this is basically business as usual, which causes climate-changing emissions, which have an economic cost. It causes pollutants being issued, which have an economic cost, health cost and so on. Use of freshwater. If you drill water to make coke near a village farm, that's not illegal, but yes, it costs the community.

Can we stop this, and how? I think the first point to make is that we need to recognize natural capital. Basically the stuff of life is natural capital, and we need to recognize and build that into our systems. When we measure GDP as a measure of economic performance at the national level, we don't include our biggest asset at the country level. When we measure corporate performances, we don't include our impacts on nature and what our business costs society. That has to stop. In fact, this was what really inspired my interest in this phase. I began a project way back called the Green Accounting Project. That was in the early 2000s when India was going gung-ho about GDP growth as the means forward -- looking at China with its stellar growths of eight,nine,10 percent and wondering, why can we do the same? And a few friends of mine and I decided this doesn't make sense. This is going to create more cost to society and more losses. So we decided to do a massive set of calculations and started producing green accounts for India and its states. That's how my interests began and went to the TEEB project. Calculating this at the national level is one thing, and it has begun. And the World Bank has acknowledged this and they've started a project called WAVES -- Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services.

But calculating this at the next level, that means at the business sector level, is important. And actually we've done this with the TEEB project. We've done this for a very difficult case, which was for deforestation in China. This is important, because in China in 1997, the Yellow River actually went dry for nine months causing severe loss of agriculture output and pain and loss to society. Just a year later the Yangtze flooded, causing something like 5,500 deaths. So clearly there was a problem with deforestation. It was associated largely with the construction industry.

And the Chinese government responded sensibly and placed a ban on felling. A retrospective on 40 years shows that if we had accounted for these costs -- the cost of loss of topsoil, the cost of loss of waterways, the lost productivity, the loss to local communities as a result of all these factors, desertification and so on -- those costs are almost twice as much as the market price of timber. So in fact, the price of timber in the Beijing marketplace ought to have been three-times what it was had it reflected the true pain and the costs to the society within China. Of course, after the event one can be wise.

The way to do this is to do it on a company basis, to take leadership forward, and to do it for as many important sectors which have a cost, and to disclose these answers. Someone once asked me, "Who is better or worse, is it Unilever or is it P & G when it comes to their impact on rainforests in Indonesia?" And I couldn't answer because neither of these companies, good though they are and professional though they are, do not calculate or disclose their externalities.

But if we look at companies like PUMA -- Jochen Zeitz, their CEO and chairman, once challenged me at a function, saying that he's going to implement my project before I finish it. Well I think we kind of did it at the same time, but he's done it. He's basically worked the cost to PUMA. PUMA has 2.7 billion dollars of turnover,300 million dollars of profits,200 million dollars after tax,94 million dollars of externalities, cost to business. Now that's not a happy situation for them, but they have the confidence and the courage to come forward and say, "Here's what we are measuring. We are measuring it because we know that you can not manage what you do not measure."

That's an example, I think, for us to look at and for us to draw comfort from. If more companies did this, and if more sectors engaged this as sectors, you could have analysts, business analysts, and you could have people like us and consumers and NGOs actually look and compare the social performance of companies. Today we can't yet do that, but I think the path is laid out. This can be done. And I'm delighted that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in the U.K. has already set up a coalition to do this, an international coalition.

The other favorite, if you like, solution for me is the creation of green carbon markets. And by the way, these are my favorites -- externalities calculation and green carbon markets. TEEB has more than a dozen separate groups of solutions including protected area evaluation and payments for ecosystem services and eco-certification and you name it, but these are the favorites. What's green carbon? Today what we have is basically a brown carbon marketplace. It's about energy emissions. The European Union ETS is the main marketplace. It's not doing too well. We've over-issued. A bit like inflation: you over-issue currency, you get what you see, declining prices. But that's all about energy and industry.

But what we're missing is also some other emissions like black carbon, that is soot. What we're also missing is blue carbon, which, by the way, is the largest store of carbon -- more than 55 percent. Thankfully, the flux, in other words, the flow of emissions from the ocean to the atmosphere and vice versa, is more or less balanced. In fact, what's being absorbed is something like 25 percent of our emissions, which then leads to acidification or lower alkalinity in oceans. More of that in a minute.

And finally, there's deforestation, and there's emission of methane from agriculture. Green carbon, which is the deforestation and agricultural emissions, and blue carbon together comprise 25 percent of our emissions. We have the means already in our hands, through a structure, through a mechanism, called REDD Plus -- a scheme for the reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. And already Norway has contributed a billion dollars each towards Indonesia and Brazil to implement this Red Plus scheme. So we actually have some movement forward. But the thing is to do a lot more of that.

Will this solve the problem? Will economics solve everything? Well I'm afraid not. There is an area that is the oceans, coral reefs. As you can see, they cut across the entire globe all the way from Micronesia across Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Madagascar and to the West of the Caribbean. These red dots, these red areas, basically provide the food and livelihood for more than half a billion people. So that's almost an eighth of society. And the sad thing is that, as these coral reefs are lost -- and scientists tell us that any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above 350 parts per million is too dangerous for the survival of these reefs -- we are not only risking the extinction of the entire coral species, the warm water corals, we're not only risking a fourth of all fish species which are in the oceans, but we are risking the very lives and livelihoods of more than 500 million people who live in the developing world in poor countries.

So in selecting targets of 450 parts per million and selecting two degrees at the climate negotiations, what we have done is we've made an ethical choice. We've actually kind of made an ethical choice in society to not have coral reefs. Well what I will say to you in parting is that we may have done that. Let's think about it and what it means, but please, let's not do more of that. Because mother nature only has that much in ecological infrastructure and that much natural capital. I don't think we can afford too much of such ethical choices.

Thank you.


自然の 見えざる経済についてお話します 不都合にも 大自然は人類に 請求書なんて出しません とはいえ 放っておけない問題です 私はキャリアをマーケッターとして スタートし 今も関心があります 一方で 最近は 大自然から人類が受ける 値段がつけられることのない 恩恵の価値に着目してます

TEEBは2007年に発足しました G8+5の環境大臣たちによる プロジェクトです スターン卿のスターン・レビューに 触発されて発足しました 彼らは こう思いました 経済要因が環境へのアクションを かくも素早く起こさせるなら 環境保護も同じようにならないか? 自然保護に対して 同じように できないものか? 答えは: イエス でも そう簡単なことじゃありません 生物の多様性 地球が織りなす生態系は 幾層にも折り重なってます 例えば 生態系 生物種 遺伝子 が 国際的 国家的 そしてローカルな規模で スターン卿と 彼のチームが成し遂げた事は そう簡単なことではありません

とはいえ プロジェクトはスタートし 中間報告を まとめました 無数の情報が多くの研究員から 寄せられました 調査結果の中には 驚くべき情報も含まれ 人類が大自然から受けている恩恵- 自然資源が異常なスピードで 失われつつあるのです- しかも 2~4兆ドルもの価値が 失われたのです 報告は2008年になされ ご存じのようにリーマンショックの年で 金融資本のなんと 2.5兆ドルが消え去った年です そのくらいの損害規模があるのです 以来 調査は続き 報告をしています-国際社会に 政府に 地自体 企業 そして 私たち一般の人々に 昨年 国連で発表された大量の報告は 大自然の見えざる経済と 私たちができる事を示しました

ご説明します お馴染みの アマゾンの熱帯雨林- 炭素や生物の多様性の宝庫 あまり知られていないのは 雨も作り出していることです 北東貿易風は アマゾンを通過する際 効率的に水蒸気を吸収します なんと一日に200億トンもの水蒸気を 北東貿易風は吸収します それらは凝縮されラ・プラタ流域に 雨をもたらします こうした雨をもたらすサイクルは 2,400億ドルもの価値を ラテンアメリカの農業に もたらします さて質問です: ウルグアイ パラグアイ アルゼンチン そしてブラジルといった国々は 雨をもたらすアマゾンに対して いくら支払っているでしょうか? 答えは:ゼロ 全くのゼロ これこそが大自然の見えざる経済 放っておけない問題です 経済効果はとてもインパクトがあるため 政策決定の要因となります 私たちがこの見えざる 経済を 可視化しない限り 今も続く 貴重な大自然の資産の 損失を止めることはできません

アマゾンや熱帯雨林だけの問題ではありません この問題のどのレベルを見ても- 生態系 生物種 はたまた遺伝子レベル 各階層で同じ問題が見られます 生態系レベルにおける熱帯雨林による 降雨サイクルと水量の管理― 生物種のレベルでは 昆虫が果物などに行う受粉 こうした作業は 1,900億ドルもの価値があり これは地球上で 農業が 生み出す価値の8%を占めます こうした価値は完全に帳簿外です ハチが請求書を持ってくるようなことはないでしょ? ついでに言うと 遺伝子レベルでは 60%の医薬分子が熱帯雨林で 捜し求められ見つかったのです 大自然はこれらの請求はしません

また 別の側面からこの問題を捉えると 一体 誰が支払を受けるべきなのでしょう? こうした遺伝子素材は 誰かのものであるならば 現地の貧しい人々のものでしょう 彼らが研究者たちをこうした分子に導き 医薬品が作られるのです 彼らもまた支払を受けていません では生物種のレベルを見てみましょう 水産資源について 今日 水産資源の減少は深刻で 貧しい人々 伝統を重んずる漁師達 そして 漁業で生計を立て 家族を養う人々に 大打撃を与えています およそ10億もの人々が海がもたらす 水産物に依存しています 10億もの人々が動物性蛋白質を 水産物から得ています 水産物の減少スピードは多くの側面で 人類がもたらした問題であり これまでにない 健康被害をもたらします 最後に生態系のレベル 森林がもたらす洪水対策や干ばつ対策 そして貧しい農民による 飼料のための 落ち葉拾い はたまた燃料となる マキ集めなど 貧困層が最も 生態系からの恩恵を受けています

私たちの計算によると ブラジル インド インドネシアといった国々では 生態系の恩恵は- 無償で大自然より人類へもたらされ- GDP比では- 2~5%と低めです- しかし 貧困層にとってのインパクトの パーセンテージは大きく 45% 75% そして90%にもなります こんなに違いがあるのです こうした恩恵は貧困層には重要です 一方で 最も重要な 発展資源である生態系の インフラを破壊しつつ もう一方で 最適な発展など 望めないでしょう

どのくらい深刻なのか? こちらは生物の多様性を図にしたものです トラ カエル ダニなどなど 生物の多様性の 平均値を表します 緑色であれば 80~100%という意味で 黄色であれば40~60% 工業時代以前の1,750年の 状態を基準にした割合です

ご覧ください 経済活動がどんなに 影響を与えていることか インド 中国 ヨーロッパ サハラ以南のアフリカ 人類を持続できなくなるスピードで 生物の多様性は失われています ご覧ください 緑色のままの地域-朗報ではなく- これらはゴビ砂漠 ツンドラ地域 サハラ砂漠といった 最初から生物がほとんどいない 地域ばかりです 大きな問題なのです 問題の原因は 突き詰めれば 私たちが 公共の利益と 私的利益の違いが 認識できない点にあります 私たちが公益をないがしろに しがちなのは それが共有のもので みんなのものだからです

タイの例を見てみましょう マングローブの価値は調査を行った9年間で― 約600ドルと大したことありません- エビの養殖場に転換した場合 その価値は9,600ドルに上がります こうしてマングローブは伐採され エビの養殖場へと 転換されつつあります もちろんキチンと計算すれば 8,000ドルは 補助金なのです さて 比べてみましょう 今や1,200ドル対600ドル そんなに差はありませんね

一方で 養殖場を再度 生産的なマングローブに 戻すとなると 一体いくらかかるのか? 塩分や化学薬品が一度堆積され その影響後には 答えはなんと12,000ドルです マングローブがもたらす恩恵― 嵐やサイクロンといった自然災害対策 貧しい人々へ魚をもたらす 養魚場としての価値 それは11,000ドル 別の見方をすると 公共の利益の立場から 私的利益を比べてみると 全く違った計算結果となります すなわち 環境保護は環境破壊よりも ずっと理に適っています

タイだけのお話でしょうか? いいえ 地球規模に渡ります 同じようなケースを見てみましょう 最近の調査-ここ10年ですが- TRUCOSTという団体により トップ3,000社に対して環境コストの 調査を行いました ビジネスを維持するためのコストです 違法なものでなく 通常のビジネスにおいても 環境に悪いCO2は排出され経済的損害を導きます 汚染物質も発生し 経済的損害以外にも 健康被害なども引き起こします 例えば 水の利用 コーラのために 村の畑近くに井戸を掘る 合法ですが 村は影響を受けます

どうやって止めるか? まず 自然資源について認識を持つ必要があります 基本的に大自然は自然資源です 認識し 社会に取り込む必要があります GDPを計算する際 経済の実情を測るわけですが 国レベルでの最大の資産が入っていません 企業のパフォーマンスを測る際 環境に与える影響は考慮されてません 社会に与える負荷も 改めなければなりません これこそ この問題に取り組もうとしたきっかけで 最初の取り組みはGreen Accounting Projectでした 2000年代初頭 インドがGDPの成長に躍起になって- ちょうど中国の 8~10%の目覚ましい成長を見て 自分たちも!と触発された頃です 数人の友人と私は この成長は社会にとって コストと損失をもたらすものだと結論づけました そこで大量の計算に取り組み インドにおける緑の会計をはじめました こうして 私の取り組みは始まり TEEBに至ります 国レベルのこうした計算は始まりました そして世界銀行もこの問題を認識し WAVESプロジェクトを立ち上げました Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services

次のレベル ビジネス分野での取り組みが重要で TEEBの一貫として始まっています 中国における森林破壊という 難しい分野にも取り組みました 重要な課題です なにしろ 1997年 黄河は9ヶ月に渡り干上がり 地域に多大な農業被害と 損失をもたらしました 翌年には長江が氾濫 約5,500人もの犠牲が払われました 森林破壊の被害は明白で ほとんどの原因は建設業にあり

中国政府は賢明な対応をしました 伐採を禁止したのです この40年を振り返ってみると 森林破壊によるコスト- 表土の流出 水路の消滅 生産性の低下 またこうした損失が 地域社会にもたらす被害 砂漠化などなど- こうしたコストは市場の木材価格の なんと2倍にもなります ということは 北京の木材市場の価格は こうした社会へ与えた 被害総額も全て加えると その3倍であるべきでした 当然 一度痛い目にあうと賢くなります

企業レベルでの実施は 企業が主導権をもって 重要なセクターのコストを 開示していく必要があります 「ユニリーバとP&Gでは インドネシアのジャングルへ より負荷をかけているのは?」 分かりません どちらも こうした計算をしていないし 情報開示もありませんから

一方 プーマは- CEO兼会長のザイツ氏が かつて 私に言いました 私よりも先にこのプロジェクトを実施するぞって まあ 同着だったと思いますが 環境コストを計算しました プーマは270億円の粗利に対し 3億ドルの利益 税引き後利益は2億ドル それに対し環境コストは9,400万ドル いい状況とは言えません しかし 彼らは胸を張って言えます 「数字に落とし込み 管理できるようにするため 環境コストを計算しました」と

こうしたケースに 勇気づけられます もっと多くの会社が参加すれば 多くのセクターで参加者が増えれば 私たちのような一般消費者やNGOが ビジネスを分析し 各会社を並べて その社会貢献度を比較できます 現在 そこまでに至っていませんが 不可能なことではありません 英国勅許会計士協会のような団体が 国際的な協力体制を築いていることは 喜ばしいことです

お次は私のお気に入り グリーン・カーボン市場の創出です ところで私のお気に入りは- 環境コストとグリーン・カーボン市場です TEEBには問題別にグループがあります 例えば 保護区の査定 生態系への投資 そしてエコ認証 その中でも お気に入りはこれ さて グリーン・カーボンとは何か? 現在あるのはブラウン・カーボン市場 エネルギー排出に関するもので E.U.のETSが主要な市場です 供給過剰のためインフレ状態で うまくいってません 価格の下落が見られます これはエネルギーと産業についてです

足りないのは他の排出に対する考慮で 煤煙排出のブラック・カーボン そして海洋のブルー・カーボン これは炭素の供給源では最大です- なんと55% 幸いなことに 海洋から大気への 供給の流れそしてその逆も バランスがとれています 私たちの排出量の 25%ほどは 海で酸性化ないし 弱アルカリ化されます ほんの1分ほどで

最後に森林破壊と 農業により排出の メタンによる グリーン・カーボン― ―森林破壊と農業により排出 そしてブルー・カーボン 2つで地球温暖化ガスの25%を占めます 対策方法は既にあるのです REDD Plusと呼ばれる森林破壊による 排出量の減少対策の しくみによるものです ノルウェーは既にインドネシア ブラジルそれぞれに REDD Plus実行のため 10億ドルもの援助を行っています 取り組みは既にはじまっているのです でも問題はこれだけじゃありません

経済によりすべてが解決されるのでしょうか? そうはいきません 海にはサンゴ礁が広がる地域があります ご覧のように 地球中で ミクロネシア地域 インドネシア マレーシア そしてマダガスカル さらには西カリブまで 赤い点の地域では サンゴ礁により生活の糧が 5億以上の人々に供給されています 全体のなんと8分の1もの人々です 悲劇なのはこうしたサンゴ礁は失われ- 専門家によると ある一定レベル以上の大気中の二酸化炭素は サンゴ礁には有毒過ぎる- 私たちはサンゴ礁を 絶滅の危機に晒しているだけでなく また海に住む海洋生物の4分の1をも絶滅させ それだけではなく発展途上国に住む 5億もの貧しい人々をも 危険に晒しているのです

二酸化炭素の濃度目標を450ppmとし 温度の上昇を2度までと妥協することで ある倫理的な決断を下しました すなわち こうした地域にサンゴ礁を 維持しないというものです もっとも こうしたことは 知らずに行われたことですが 一体どういう意味を持つのでしょう? もう これ以上はやめましょう 母なる自然にはもう環境のインフラ そして自然資源は残されていないのです これ以上余裕はありません



― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―


  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等