I have always said that these environmentalists are pseudo-environmentalists, and some people disagree. I think they are pseudo-environmentalists because although they claim to be doing environmental protection, they are not actually doing real environmental work. Some of the things they do are actually against environmental protection. When I mentioned "pseudo-environmentalism," some people said this was a Cultural Revolution term. At that meeting, a journalist said it would be best not to use the term "pseudo-environmentalism." I feel that since there is such a thing as pseudo-science, there must also be pseudo-environmentalism. If saying "pseudo" makes it a Cultural Revolution term, then we shouldn't mention pseudo-science either. So I still insist on using the term "pseudo-environmentalism." Some people say "extreme environmentalism" might be better, but I think there's a difference between them and extreme environmentalists. Extreme environmentalists genuinely want to engage in environmental protection; their views may be extreme or wrong, but they are sincere and passionate. I believe there are no such people domestically. These domestic individuals are not genuinely engaged in environmental protection. However, they have an international background, which stems from international extreme environmentalist ideologies and Western extreme environmentalist trends. Their ideas are borrowed from these sources and are not at all novel. They also receive substantial funding from foreign institutions, political organizations, cult organizations, international foundations, and multinational corporations.
This is something I originally didn't want to bring up, but after my investigation ended, I gave a speech at Yunnan University where I jokingly mentioned these NGOs, non-governmental organizations, who call themselves non-governmental. I believe this is highly questionable because they receive money from foreign political organizations, so whether these organizations can be considered non-governmental is debatable. Unlike us at New Threads, who don't accept money from any politically affiliated organizations, making us true NGOs. This was just a joke, but it made them feel threatened, accusing me of spreading rumors.
During an interview with Shanghai's Bund magazine, they said they absolutely did not receive money from foreign political organizations. If I didn't clarify this, it would seem like I was publicly spreading rumors. My statement was based on evidence found on the website of Beijing Earth Village, led by Liao Xiaoyi (audience laughter). Among relatively well-constructed environmental websites, this one seemed more formal, mainly because it disclosed its financial status. Although only for one year, 2002, and only in English, you won't find these materials in Chinese. This was to give an account to foreign donors regarding what funds were received and how they were spent. It was this particular year's financial report in English that caught my attention. In that year, they received over 1.7 million yuan in donations, mostly from abroad. Some were government agencies, like the British Embassy in Beijing, which gave them 400,000 yuan, and the Bohr Foundation gave them 360,000 yuan. The Bohr Foundation is a political foundation of the Green Party overseas. The Green Party, as you know, was once a coalition ruling party in Germany but recently lost power. The foundation explicitly states that it is a political foundation under the Green Party. They received 360,000 yuan from there. There were also multinational corporations like Shell Oil Company, which gave them 130,000 yuan, and ExxonMobil Oil Company also provided a sum of money. Their financial situation is as follows, which I listed out to prove that I wasn't spreading rumors, and they indeed received money from foreign government agencies and political organizations.
When I talked about these things, I hadn't yet touched on cult organizations, which I discovered later. I thank Beijing Earth Village for providing such detailed activity information. One piece of news on their site mentioned that in August 2004, they jointly hosted a training session with the International Education Foundation on service spirit and green awareness. The International Education Foundation sounds very formal and serious, but in reality, it's a cult organization, specifically the Korean Unification Church. This foundation operates very frequently in China due to its ability to provide money and has a good-sounding name, so even some government departments, like the Ministry of Health, collaborate with them for trainings. What kind of trainings? Sexual purity trainings, educating teenagers not to engage in early sexual activities or extramarital affairs. This sounds appealing, so many entities cooperate with them for trainings, but they fail to consider the underlying doctrine. The reason behind their advocacy is that they believe their leader, Moon Sun-myung, is a savior and the parent of all humanity, demanding everyone's obedience. A unique aspect of the Unification Church, observable through foreign television, is their mass weddings. Thousands get married at once, recognizing Moon Sun-myung's couple as their true parents, with the brides and grooms paired by him without prior knowledge of each other. They hold bizarre practices, which is why they are considered a cult internationally. However, their activities within China are quite frequent. I'm unsure if their green awareness will eventually transform into Unification Church awareness.
I raised the issue of their funding sources, leaving them unable to refute it, so they turned around and questioned whose money funded my trip to Nujiang (audience laughter). (PowerPoint shows text) A netizen watched a Phoenix TV program called "Social Visibility" hosted by Zeng Zimo. Phoenix TV interviewed me in late October. They initially praised their previous episode opposing the dam construction on the Nu River, which was a special feature on Wang Yongchen. After listening to the high-level forum on October 22nd, they admitted possible biases in their earlier perspectives and hoped to exclusively interview me to clarify misunderstandings. Since I had to leave the next day for Zhejiang, I couldn't spare time, but they persistently pressured me, almost shamelessly. Feeling sympathetic, I agreed to go. Thinking it was a good opportunity to clarify for the public, I went. Their program aired quickly, and I watched it in Zhejiang, shocked to discover that after interviewing me, they sought Wang Yongchen to counter me. Essentially, I spoke a segment, followed by Wang Yongchen countering me (audience laughter). Initially supposed to be an exclusive interview, advertised as Fang Zhous talking about the Nu River issues, Wang Yongchen ended up speaking more than me (audience laughter). That aside, some of Wang Yongchen's rebuttals were baseless, appearing reasonable to her but sounding irrational to others. What angered me most was the editing of my statements, taking them out of context. She pursued the source of my funding, asking who paid for our expedition. I truthfully explained that before going to Nujiang, Mr. He asked if I wanted to join, and I readily agreed. As a friend invited me, I wouldn't question the source of the funds, trusting their legitimacy, so I never thought about it throughout the process. Later, because I questioned the funding sources of these environmentalists, they retaliated by questioning mine (audience laughter), leading me to inquire and discover that the National Hydropower Planning and Design General Institute funded it from their planning budget. This is normal, as it comes from national funds, part of the planning process. They didn't just invite us; they also invited environmentalists and anti-dam advocates for the inspection. This was a regular activity, so I didn't see anything embarrassing about it. However, they edited out the latter part of my statement, making it seem like I never knew who funded it. This person (a netizen) was furious, stating, "It's clearly a lie," "When Zeng Zimo asked who funded the Nujiang expedition, he obviously lied, claiming he's careless about money and doesn't know who paid. I immediately began to despise him (audience laughter), as it's impossible. Imagine someone inviting you somewhere without asking who sent the invitation. Only a fool would believe that. I knew this person wasn't trustworthy (audience laughter), and suggesting others are pseudo-environmentalists implies ulterior motives, either receiving money from certain individuals or deliberately seeking fame through controversy. Such a person cannot be good." I previously had some goodwill towards Phoenix TV, which is why I made time for their exclusive interview, but after seeing this, I stopped watching Phoenix TV altogether (audience laughter). Regarding Zeng Zimo, during the interview, I felt she showed little respect. After she finished asking questions, as soon as the camera wasn't on her, she lowered her head and ignored what I was saying. I've participated in numerous TV interviews, and this was the first time I encountered such a host (audience laughter). Perhaps she had already planned how to manipulate me and didn't care about what I said. Reflecting back, this might have been the reason.
I don't find the issue of activity funding embarrassing. The cost of inspections and accepting funds for activities are entirely different matters. Paying for inspections is naturally expected, akin to hiring experts for appraisals or doctoral thesis reviews and defenses, paying them accordingly. This is normal and does not mean your viewpoint must align with those who pay you. However, applying for a grant involves strictly adhering to the donor's intentions; deviating means losing future funding or facing accountability, especially when funds intended for environmental protection or research are misused. These are entirely separate issues. Linking them together is a despicable tactic aimed at confusing the audience and implying I was bought off by interest groups. If someone is bought, their stance must change, like switching from supporting environmentalists to opposing them. Before the trip, I consistently criticized pseudo-environmentalists, maintaining my position without change. How could you suspect I was bought? The key lies in the validity of my arguments, regardless of my motives. Why pursue my motives if you can't refute my points? Even if my motives were despicable, as long as my arguments are valid, they should still be accepted, right? Such attacks are purely personal assaults, targeting the individual rather than the argument. My revelation of their funding sources isn't because I believe their sources invalidate their claims, but because I've analyzed and proven their claims unreliable, thus investigating why they hold such absurd views. They now doubt my motives because they can't refute my arguments, which is putting the cart before the horse.
Before going to Nujiang, I had already criticized pseudo-environmentalists due to debates on whether humans should revere nature. They promoted reverence for nature alongside anti-scientific superstitions, notably Wang Yongchen. In her article "Ecological Concerns and Media Responsibility," she mentioned the Meili Snow Mountain in Tibet, where a snow avalanche occurred years ago. Chinese and Japanese mountaineers climbed the mountain, triggering an avalanche that killed many climbers, leaving 17 dead. She claimed the avalanche happened because Meili Snow Mountain is considered a sacred mountain by local Tibetan Buddhism, which should not be touched. When the local lamas opposed the climb, they insisted, prompting the lamas to chant prayers, causing the sacred mountain to retaliate with the avalanche. Is believing this not superstition? I consider it superstitious and anti-scientific, discouraging exploration and geological surveys. Other Tibetan sacred mountains, like Mount Everest, are regularly climbed without similar incidents. They merely seize convenient examples.
Another point I raised before going to Nujiang was Wang Yongchen's claim in a Tom.com interview titled "Nu River is Seeking Help from Humanity" that the electricity generation capacity of the Nu River is 20 million kilowatt-hours. She argued that saving 20 million kilowatt-hours through conservation or structural adjustments is effortless. To generate 20 million kilowatt-hours, destroying an ecological river and the world's largest canyon is regrettable from any perspective. The Nu River isn't the world's largest canyon, but let's ignore that. Her claim of 20 million kilowatt-hours is incorrect because she confuses power generation capacity with power output (audience laughter). The installed capacity of the Nu River is 20 million kilowatts, and she doesn't understand that degrees are kilowatt-hours. Therefore, she mistakenly calculated it as 20 million kilowatt-hours. This amount of electricity is minimal, requiring only 20 million kilowatt-hours for a small city's residential electricity consumption annually. I pointed out this error, stating she doesn't differentiate between kilowatt-hours and kilowatts, basic knowledge learned in middle school physics (audience laughter). Later, she fabricated an excuse, claiming the recording officer at Tom.com made the mistake (audience laughter), shifting responsibility. This explanation doesn't hold, as she repeatedly emphasized how negligible the electricity was, easily conserved. If she meant 20 million kilowatts, that's an enormous amount of power, equivalent to 10 billion kilowatt-hours annually. They refuse to admit mistakes. We've pointed out countless errors, yet they've never acknowledged a single one. Honestly admitting confusion between power generation and capacity would suffice, but to maintain appearances, they continue lying. Misleading the public in interviews leads people to incorrectly perceive the Nu River project as low-efficiency.
There's also fabrication involved. Claims of pristine rivers are obvious fabrications. Another is the assertion that "America has entered the dam removal era," suggesting America is dismantling large dams. You may have heard this, including a National Geographic special, stating other developed countries recognize the significant harm of dams, halting construction and removing existing ones, while China continues aggressively building. Several reasons explain this. America has indeed reduced dam construction because it has nearly exhausted its hydroelectric potential, developing about 70% of feasible resources, whereas China is just beginning. America has built tens of thousands of dams. Dams have lifespans; smaller dams last decades to a century before being decommissioned. Thus, every year, old dams are removed, given their numbers. China also continuously removes dams, having tens of thousands. However, influential American dams, like Hoover Dam, remain intact. A deceptive aspect of National Geographic is that it lists removed dams without specifying their sizes. The images shown are of large dams like Hoover, misleading viewers into thinking major dams were dismantled (audience laughter). Later, the vice president of the Three Gorges Corporation wrote an article addressing this, showing pictures of the removed dams, all small. Moreover, America continues constructing dams, completing the Seven Oaks Dam in 1999, the world's tallest at 193 meters, and another 97-meter dam recently. Plans include dozens more in the coming years. Bush's energy development plan mentions promoting hydropower under environmental protection principles, roughly translated. Claiming America no longer builds dams is false.
Another claim is that hydropower isn't renewable clean energy, proposed by Fan Xiao. Fan Xiao, among renowned environmentalists, might be slightly related to hydropower, whereas others are humanities graduates. For instance, Liao Xiaoyi was from the Academy of Social Sciences' Marxist-Leninist Institute (audience laughter), returning after studying abroad. Wang Yongchen is a journalist from Central People's Broadcasting Station. Fan Xiao has some professional background as chief engineer at Sichuan Geopark. Rarely discussing geology or earthquakes, he often addresses other topics. In his articles, he argues that hydropower isn't renewable clean energy because dams have limited lifespans, necessitating eventual removal, making it non-renewable. I believe he conflates two issues. Removing a dam doesn't imply hydropower ceases; the river continues flowing, allowing new dams to be constructed and utilized, remaining renewable unlike coal, which depletes upon extraction. He intentionally conflates these concepts. Furthermore, reservoirs submerge vegetation, which decomposes, releasing methane, making it unclean. Studies in Brazil suggest reservoirs release harmful gases post-construction. Brazil's case may differ due to submerged vast areas like the Amazon rainforest. In China, however, the Nu River lacks significant vegetation, and generally, forests are cleared beforehand to reduce gas emissions during dam construction. Hydropower is recognized as renewable clean energy by the academic community and included in the United Nations Renewable Energy Declaration.
Previously, these were fabricated claims debunked, leaving them unable to respond, resorting to insults. Online, many anonymous insults exist. Here, I mention Fan Xiao, who claimed hydropower isn't renewable and that Gongshan county flooding would leave immigrants homeless. After I exposed him, he didn't refute but resorted to insults, using vulgar language like "wailing in grief, raging with fire, yelling wildly," "exhausting all tricks," "rogue antics," "clown jumping around," "homeless... lackeys." Seeing such insults, I maintain that cursing reflects poorly on the curser more than the cursed. I admire Fan Xiao's courage in signing his real name to such articles, commendable compared to anonymous insulters. Many accuse me of personal attacks, particularly against pseudo-environmentalists. By calling them liars and fabricators, they view this as personal attacks. I argue it isn't if I can prove their falsehoods and deceit. Without proof, labeling someone a liar constitutes a personal attack. Personal attacks involve irrelevant aspects like appearance or private life, which is inappropriate. For example, suggesting unmarried women enthusiastic about environmental protection do so out of boredom and lack of children (aud