2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采

访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并

自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，

《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking 

a Public Voice on China's 'Angry River'）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例

如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道

只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on 

a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention 

by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成

中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。

 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？



答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采

访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇

拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国

最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我

们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在

互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂

亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并

邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我

学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用

造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏

境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问

怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公

众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。



二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活



答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。

我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，

我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水

坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕

地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他

们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！） build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a



三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？

ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治

方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放

在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而

不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人

类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。



四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。



答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定

有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环

评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研

究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，

他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的

听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该

杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互

联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了

解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

对专家和公众。



五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

发挥更大的作用？



答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。



六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该 build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？



答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在

的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会

变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反

对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当

地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启

蒙”。

ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。



答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。



八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		



答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取

义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活动，但是

回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知

道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一

名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环

保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活



1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you 

get involved?rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		



Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among 

Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang 

Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami 

was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I 

thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to 

criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last 

"primitive ecological river" (i.e., there is not a dam in its 

mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

protect and preserve it for our future generations. That's the first 

time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang 

and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false 

information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her 

presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of 

local people. I was impressed and wondered if it's true. Several days 

later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in 

early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I 

am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River 

has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation 

(deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been 

built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the 

so-called "primitive ecological river" is simply a lie. I was also 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty 

condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After 

the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. 

The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. 

That's how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

of the environmentalists' personal attack.



2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

forward?



I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but 

against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not 

an expert at dam project, so I don't have opinions of it. By the way,  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been 

destroyed, we shouldn't care about it and just build a dam in it. What 

I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. 

In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the 

environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing 

sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the 

local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   



3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

organizations who are opposing the dam project?



I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, 

they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which 

they rarely pay attention. I don't agree their extreme  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement 

should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, 

misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the 

Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. 

I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

biodiversity in China. 



4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on 

the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the 

results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		



I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is 

made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately that's 

impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that 

scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this 

environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesn't dare to 

let the public know. It's purely legal reason that the study can't be 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem 

because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the 

impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

really want the impact study published, they should have asked the 

government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal 

is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental 

assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on 

Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the 

dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists' view). 

Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the 

Internet. The experts promised to answer any questions regarding the 

impact study. It's a very good chance to let the public know what the  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting 

and none of them attended. They didn't dare to face the experts and 

public.动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just



5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also 

allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams? build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a



Yes. But that shouldn't become a reason to oppose a dam project, 

otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

China until China becomes a democratic country.



6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that 

the project may not help alleviate their poverty?


		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I can't 

imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive 

compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current 

yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, 

surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really ny questions regarding the impact study. Its a very good chance to let the public know what the impact study found. But the environmentalists boycotted the meeting and none of them attended. They didnt dare to face the experts and public.5) Do you think that since China promotes Rule of Law, it should also allow the public a greater role in deciding whether to build these dams?Yes. But that shouldnt become a reason to oppose a dam project, otherwise we should suspend any dam projects or any other projects in China until China becomes a democratic country.6) How do you think the dam project will help the people who currently live on the Nu River? What is your response to critics who argue that the project may not help alleviate their poverty?Most of local people are living in extreme poverty condition. I cant imagine how their life would become poorer. If they can receive compensation as promised (tens of thousand RMB per person according current law, and an astronomical figure compared to their current yearly income), and have job opportunity brought by the dam building, surely their life will become better. If the environmentalists really care about local peoples well-being, they should help to make sure the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, instead of using local peoples well-being as an excuse to oppose the dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local people support the dam project and believe they will have a better life because of it. The environmentalists dont deny this fact. They claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are trying to enlighten local people. 7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship between government and citizens?This is more like a political question, and I dont think its relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, but I dont think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television that included an interview with you? That program didnt present my view accurately. In fact, it deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that I said I didnt know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didnt know and didnt care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew its sponsored by National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought its very normal because the same Institute also sponsored some environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly stated that I dont believe in scientism. What I believe is that environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.(XYS20051227)◇◇新语丝(www.xys.o

care about local people's well-being, they should help to make sure 

the local people would receive the benefits as promised by government, 

instead of using local people's well-being as an excuse to oppose the 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

dam project. To my knowledge, according the surveys conducted by 

impact study group and by environmentalists, the majority of local 

people support the dam project and believe they will have a better  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

life because of it. The environmentalists don't deny this fact. They 

claim that local people are misled by government, and now they are 

trying to "enlighten" local people. 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活



7) Under the concept of Rule of Law, what is the proper relationship 

between government and citizens?
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活



This is more like a political question, and I don't think it's 

relative to the topic. I believe China should become more democratic, 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

but I don't think we should sacrifice a dam project for this goal. 



8) What is your impression of the recent program on Phoenix Television 
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活

that included an interview with you? 



That program didn't present my view accurately. In fact, it  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

deliberately misquoted me several times. For instance, it showed that 

I said I didn't know who sponsored my visit to Nu River, and misled 

the viewers to believe that I was lying. What I said was that I didn't rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

know and didn't care to know who sponsored the visit during my visit, 

but after returning to Beijing, because some environmentalists and 

journalists questioned it, I asked around and knew it's sponsored by  build a dam in it. What I am saying is that if we decide to build dam in that area, the environmental cost is not as high as what the environmentalists claim. In contrast, the dam project will probably help to protect the environment there in some way, for instance, stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient fund to protect local ecology. (I was informed that the local government of Nu River is so poor that their budget for environment protection currently is only 20,000 RMB per year!)   3) What is your opinion of the environmentalists and non-governmental organizations who are opposing the dam project?I doubt they really care about the environmental problems in China. Their motive is more political than environmental. If they really care, they should focus on the most serious issue, i.e. pollution, to which they rarely pay attention. I dont agree their extreme environmentalist view either. I believe environmentalist movement should base on fact, science and humanism, instead of lies, misinformation, superstitions and fear. I believe the ultimate purpose of protecting the Nature is to protect human being, instead of the Nature itself (as claimed by Ms. Wang). I myself am an environmentalist. I have written many articles to call on protecting the ecology and biodiversity in China. 4) What do you think of the open letter signed by environmentalists and academics that was dated August 31? In this letter, they called on the government to allow for a public hearing and to make public the results of the recent environmental assessment impact study. I would be glad to see the environmental assessment impact study is made public, because I believe that would clarify many misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Unfortunately thats impossible under current law. Current Chinese law prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential, and Nu River is one of international rivers. To my knowledge, nothing in this environmental assessment impact study is secret and doesnt dare to let the public know. Its purely legal reason that the study cant be made public. Those signers should have known this legal problem because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the impact study and should have a copy of it in their hands. If they really want the impact study published, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal is just the means to make the situation complicated and confuse the public. In fact, there was a public hearing about the environmental assessment impact study of Nu River project. This hearing was held on Oct. 22, organized by a neutral organization, the Chinese Investment Magazine (this magazine recently published several articles about the dam project, some of them supporting those environmentalists view). Some of experts participating in the study and 10 environmentalists were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was broadcast on the Internet. The experts promised to answer a

National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General 

Institute which is in charge of this project, and I thought it's very 

normal because the same Institute also sponsored some rg)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

		
		
		
		
		
		
		

environmentalists to visit Nu River before. Also, the program depicted 

me as a believer of scientism, although during interview, I clearly 

stated that I don't believe in scientism. What I believe is that 动，但是回到北京后，因为有些“环保人士”和记者对此提出质疑，我就打听了一下，知道它是负责该项目的国家水电水利勘察设计总院资助的，我认为这很正常，因为该机构在以前也资助了某些“环保人士”考察怒江。此外，该节目将我刻画成一名科学主义者，虽然在访谈时，我明确表示我不相信科学主义。我相信的是，环保运动应该同时建立在科学和人本的基础之上。1) When did you first hear about the Nu River controversy? Why did you get involved?Right after the Tsunami of last Christmas, there was a debate among Chinese intellectuals about what the proper relationship between Human Being and Nature is. Some environmentalists (including Ms. Wang Yongchen, I guess you have interviewed her) claimed that the Tsunami was a warning from the Heaven and punishment by the Nature, human being should worship and fear the Nature, and stop exploiting it. I thought this view was ridiculous and wrote several articles to criticize it. During the debate, the environmentalists repeatedly mentioned the Project of Nu River. They said Nu River is the last primitive ecological river (i.e., there is not a dam in its mainstream and its ecology is well preserved) in China, and we should protect and preserve it for our future generations. Thats the first time I heard about the Nu River controversy. In this March, Ms. Wang and I happened to give speeches to a training class for journalists in the same afternoon. My topic was about how to detect and expose false information on the Internet, and hers was about Nu River. In her presentation, she showed many beautiful pictures depicting the primitive nature of Nu River and the happy and harmonious life of local people. I was impressed and wondered if its true. Several days later, Prof. He Zuoxiu informed me that there was an opportunity to visit Nu River and invited me to join him. We visited Nu River in early April. It lasted one week. Because of my education background (I am biology major), my primary concern was the ecology of Nu River. I was shocked to see the ecology and environment in the area of Nu River has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people who have been living there for hundreds of years. Besides, two dams had been built in the upstream (in Tibet) of Nu River in 1990s. So the so-called primitive ecological river is simply a lie. I was also shocked to know and see the local peoples live in extreme poverty condition (The average yearly income is less than 1,000 RMB). After the visit, I made a speech in Yunan University to criticize the environmentalists using lies and misinformation to mislead the public. The transcript of my speech was widely circulated on the Internet. Thats how I got involved in the controversy and became a major target of the environmentalists personal attack.2) Why do you think it is important that the dam project should go forward?I am not promoting the dam project, as I have mentioned several times in my speeches and articles. I am not standing up for the project, but against using lies and misinformation to oppose the project. I am not an expert at dam project, so I dont have opinions of it. By the way, I am not saying that since the environment of Nu River has been destroyed, we shouldnt care about it and just

environmentalist movement should base on science as well as humanism.



(XYS20051227)
		
		    2005年12月4日我接到《纽约时报》记者Jim Yardley电话，希望能就怒江建坝争议当面采访我。我当时预料该报的报道将会倾向中国伪环保人士，拒绝了当面采访的要求，要求用电子邮件采访，以便我能更细致地回答这个复杂而敏感的问题并自己留下问答记录。12月7日该记者用电子邮件给我发来问题，我当天做了回答。该记者答复收到了我的回答，并说如果有进一步的问题再和我联系。12月26日，《纽约时报》登出该记者写的报道《对中国的“愤怒之河”寻找公共声音》（Seeking a Public Voice on Chinas Angry River）。该报道单方面地报道于晓刚、汪永晨、马军等人反对怒江建坝的看法，把这些人的一些不实之词当成事实陈述（例如声称“怒江是中国仅剩的两条自由流淌的河流之一”），对反对反坝人士的报道只有一句“两位著名的学者访问怒江——行程由大坝开发者赞助——并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注。”（Two prominent scholars toured the Nu - on a trip sponsored by dam developers - and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists.）文中没有报道我的看法，也没有报道何祚庥院士的观点（据我所知该记者也采访了何院士）。现在把我与该记者的问答译成中文公布如下，并将英文原文附后，供参考。一、问：你是什么时候首次听说怒江争议的？为什么你会卷入进去？答：在去年圣诞节海啸之后，中国知识分子之间发生了一场有关如何恰当地处理人类与大自然的关系的争论。一些“环保人士”（包括汪永晨女士，我猜你已采访了她）声称这次海啸是来自上苍的警告，是大自然对人类的惩罚，人类应该崇拜和畏惧大自然，并停止利用大自然。我觉得这种观点非常荒唐，写了几篇文章加以批评。在争论中，“环保人士”反复提及怒江建坝项目。他们说怒江是中国最后一条“原生态河流”（意指在其干流没有建坝，其生态状况保存良好），我们应该为子孙后代保护并保存它。这是我首次听说有关怒江的争议。在3月份，汪女士和我碰巧在同一个下午给某个记者训练班做讲座。我的题目是关于如何在互联网上发现和揭露假新闻，她的题目是关于怒江的。她在讲座中出示了许多漂亮照片描绘怒江的原始状态和当地居民幸福和谐的生活。这给我留下了深刻印象，并很想知道那是不是真的。几天后，何祚庥院士通知我有个访问怒江的机会，并邀请我参加。我们在四月初访问了怒江，行程持续一周。因为我的教育背景（我学的是生物学专业），我主要关注怒江的生态情况。我非常震惊地看到怒江一带的生态和环境实际上已被毁灭，是由于已在那里生活了数百年的居民的过度利用造成的（砍伐森林、耕地、建路等等）。此外，在1990年代已在怒江上游（西藏境内）建了两座坝。因此所谓“原生态河流”不过是个谎言。我也非常震惊地了解并看到当地居民生活在极端贫困之中（人均年收入不到1000元人民币）。访问怒江之后，我在云南大学发表演讲，批评“环保人士”用谎言和虚假信息误导公众。我的演讲记录稿在网上广为传播。这就是为何我卷入了这场争端，并成为“环保人士”人身攻击的主要目标。二、问：为什么你认为该大坝项目应该上马？答：正如我在我的演讲和文章中已几次提到的，我并不是在促使该大坝项目上马。我并不是在支持该项目，而是反对用谎言和虚假信息反对该项目。我不是水坝专家，因此我对它没有什么见解。另外，我并不是说既然怒江的环境已遭到破坏，我们就不应该管它，就建个大坝得了。我只是说，如果我们决定要在那一带建水坝，环境损失并不像“环保人士”所声称的那么大。相反地，建坝很可能在某些方面保护那里的环境，例如，通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和耕地，并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。（我获悉，怒江当地政府穷到目前他们用于环保的预算每年只有2万元人民币！）三、你对那些反坝环保人士和非政府组织的看法如何？答：我怀疑他们是否真的在关心中国的环境问题。他们的动机更多的是出于政治方面的考虑而不是环境。如果他们真正关心中国的环境，他们应该将精力集中放在最严重的环保问题上，即污染问题，而他们对此却很少关注。我也不能同意他们的极端环保观念。我相信环保运动应该建立在事实、科学和人本的基础上，而不是谎言、虚假信息、迷信和恐惧。我相信保护大自然的最终目的是为了保护人类，而不是保护大自然本身（像汪女士声称的那样）。我自己就是个环保人士。我写过许多篇文章呼吁保护中国的生态和生物多样性。四、问：你对一些环保人士和学者在8月31日签署的公开信有何看法？在那封信中，他们要求政府允许举行听证会，并公布最近环评报告的结果。答：我将很乐于见到环评报告被公布，因为我相信这将会澄清关于该建坝项目的许多虚假信息和误解。不幸的是根据现有法律那是不可能的。中国现有法律规定有关国际河流的科研数据属于机密，而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知，在该环评报告中，并没有什么秘密不敢让公众知道。该环评报告无法公示纯属法律原因。那些公开信签名者应该知道这个法律问题，因为他们中的有些人（例如蒋高明研究员）参与了环评，手中应该有该环评报告。如果他们真的想要环评报告被公示，他们应该首先要求政府修改法律才对。因为我相信他们的呼吁不过是一种伎俩，试图使局势复杂化，迷惑公众。事实上，曾经有过关于怒江项目的环评结果的听证会。该听证会于10月22日举行，由一个中立的机构《中国投资》杂志社（该杂志最近发表了几篇关于怒江项目的文章，其中有些是支持“环保人士”的）举办。一些参与环评的专家和10名“环保人士”被邀请参加这次会议。会议通过互联网直播。专家们答应回答有关环评的任何问题。这是一个很好的机会让公众了解环评的内容。但是“环保人士”抵制这次会议，他们一个都没去。他们不敢面对专家和公众。五、问：既然中国在提倡法治，你是否认为应该允许公众对决定是否建这些大坝发挥更大的作用？答：是的。但是这不应该成为反对一个大坝项目的理由，否则，在中国成为民主国家之前，我们应该停止中国的任何建坝项目或其他任何项目。六、问：你对建坝项目将会帮助怒江当地居民一事有何看法？有批评者争辩说该项目不会减轻他们的贫困状态，你对此有何回应？答：多数当地居民生活在极端贫困之中。我无法想像他们的生活会变得更贫困。如果他们能够如愿得到补偿（根据现在的法规，每人数万元人民币，与他们现在的年收入相比是个天文数字），以及建坝带来的工作机会，他们的生活肯定会变得更好。如果“环保人士”真正关心当地居民的福利，他们应该帮助确保当地居民将会得到政府所许诺的建坝带来的益处，而不是用当地居民的福利为借口反对建坝项目。据我所知，根据环评机构和“环保人士”做的民意调查，大多数当地居民都支持建坝，并相信他们的生活会因此得到改善。“环保人士”并不否认这一事实。他们声称当地居民被政府误导，现在他们正试图对当地居民进行“启蒙”。七、问：根据法治观念，什么是政府和公民的正当关系。答：这更像是个政治问题，我不认为它和话题有关。我相信中国应该变得更民主，但是我不认为我们应该为了这个目标而去牺牲一个建坝项目。八、问：最近凤凰卫视播放了一个采访你的节目，你对它的印象如何？答：这个节目没有准确地表达我的观点。事实上，它有几次故意对我的话断章取义。例如，它播出我说我不知道谁资助了我对怒江的考察，误导观众相信我在撒谎。我其实说的是，我在访问行程中并不知道也不关心谁资助了考察活



◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇