中国与世界，环境危机大家谈 WHERE CHINA AND THE WORLD DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENT
参与讨论 COMMENTS
参与讨论
如果中国有强的环境法制，比如说来避免（控制）在敏感地带建大坝等，是不是情况就不一样，也更容易解决？
如果各层政府都允许公众的参与，那么这些自私的官员就很少有腐败的机会了?
If China has a strong law force in regarding to the Environment issue, such as the development controls for building a dam in sensitive area, would the situation be easier?
If all levels of Government allows more public participation, would those selfish officer have less chance to be corrupted?
怒江的事情争议好几年了，依然还是要上马。有正义感的记者和有良心的知识分子以及数不清的人参与了怒江保卫战，但是还是斗不过利益集团，实为可悲的事情。中国难道不能保留一片净土么？现在是需要中央政府站出来说话的时候了。
Whether to build a dam on Nujiang River has been debated for years, but unfortunately in the end the project will proceed.
Journalists advocating justice, intellectuals of conscience and other numerous people have joined in the Nujiang protection efforts.
But all these joint efforts still cannot compete with interest groups. What a woeful situation it is!
Is it impossible for China to keep some pure areas intact? It is the time for the Chinese Central Government to have the final say and correct the mistakes.
清华大学教授李楯接受媒体采访时说：“水坝建设，获利的首先是电力部门，其次是地方政府。在现行体制下，老百姓很难参与到这个利益分配过程中去。”
事实上中央政府也没什么好处，电力公司和地方政府差不多都瓜分完了。
Professor Li Dun of Qinghua University said in an interview with the media: "When dams are constructed for hydroelectric power, the local government agencies responsible for electric power are the primary beneficiaries, while the government is next in line. Under the current system, the public thus finds it very difficult to participate in the process of benefit distribution." In fact, the Central Government does not stand to benefit either. Power companies and local governments will split the benefits almost only amongst themselves.
贵网站太迷信戈尔(Al Gore)的说法。支持戈尔，岂不使贵网站失去信用呢？网站应当立即关闭。
...to be sucked in by Al Gore. Rather discredits your site, no? You should close down immediately.
怒江争议热闹了一阵子，后来好像就消停了，很多人都以为停建了呢，原来照建不误。水电公司有钱，环保人士只有热情，终归鸡蛋碰不过石头。
The debate over the Nu River dam caused a momentary stir, but it subsequently died down. Many people thought that construction had been ceased, when in fact the building plans are being carried out without fail. Hydroelectric companies have money, while environmentalists only have their enthusiasm. Ultimately, a chicken's egg can't collide with a rock.
公众参与不能做秀！不然就比不参与还要糟糕！
Public participation is not a panacea. But having none at all would be even worse.
我不太明白戈尔与本文有什么关系。再说，为什么要谈到中外对话的信用？中外对话赢得了奥斯卡奖吗？
I'm not sure what Al Gore has to do with this piece? Or how chinadialogue's credit is brought into play - did they win an Oscar?
当然，戈尔跟怒江一点关系也没有。但是既然对伪善的争辩已经开始，本人倒愿意在此指出马克·里那斯在本周《卫报》上针对这个问题的切实有力的观点及论证。
里那斯写道：“每当一个贴着绿色标签的英雄成为众矢之的时候，我们每个人都感到对那些政治家、领导者，以及整个社会的愤世嫉俗。这种态度助长自私自利的情绪并使人们满足于现状，所以说愤世嫉俗者并不能使事情向好的方向发展，他们只是进一步的否定伪善者：‘你这个伪君子，为什么我要按你说的去做？’或者更加消极：‘连你自己都不能做的事情我又如何去做？’最后的结果无非就是把问题束之高阁，情况没有任何改变。而温室气体的排放却依旧日益高速增长。……在我看来，戈尔在呼吁大众关注气候变化这方面做得很对。他所带来的政治影响是相当深远的，并且也是人们至今对气候变化持乐观态度的为数不多的原因之一。如果他只是天天在田纳西老家里穿着有机羊毛的套头衫，关了灯和暖气，自我感觉良好的话，我们并不会像现在这样清醒地意识到问题的严重性。所以说做个纯粹主义者也许让人觉得心安理得，但是却未必能改变什么。“
愤世嫉俗和鄙陋的诽谤注定不能对我们所面对的环境危机有什么帮助。正如里那斯所说的，“没有哪个愤世嫉俗的人能够让事情向好的方向发展。“
不过至少“中外对话”正在积极地做着努力。希望它再接再厉，并且能得到更多人的支持！
Of course, Al Gore is irrelevant to the Nu River article. But since a line of argument about hypocrisy has begun, I'd like to point out the cogent, well-argued piece by climate-change author Mark Lynas -- in London's Guardian newspaper this week -- regarding the recent attacks on Mr Gore.
Lynas wrote:
'Each time a potential "green hero" is shot down in flames, we all feel that little bit more cynical about politicians, leaders and society in general. Cynicism breeds selfishness and a de facto acceptance of the status quo - no cynic ever led a movement for positive change. In this sense, charging someone with hypocrisy serves to reinforce denial: "You're a hypocrite, so why should I do what you tell me?" Or the more disempowering: "If even you can't do it, how can I?" The practical outcome is that lightbulbs go unchanged, lofts uninsulated and bicycles unridden. And greenhouse gas emissions continue to soar. [...] In my view, Gore was right to rack up thousands of air miles in his campaign to raise awareness of climate change: the political shift he has helped to engineer, particularly in America, has been truly profound, and is one of the few real causes for optimism on climate change today. If he had stayed at home in Tennessee with the lights and heating off, wearing organic woolly jumpers and feeling generally good about himself, we would have a lot further to travel in terms of awareness-raising than we do now. Being a purist may be comforting, but it is unlikely to change the world.'
Cynicism -- and petty sniping -- definitely isn't helpful in light of the global environmental crisis we face. As Lynas says, "no cynic ever led a movement for positive change".
One of those positive efforts is chinadialogue. Long may it thrive!
为什么批准翻译评论4？这跟气候变化毫无关系，只能造成观点混乱。
Why was Comment #4 approved and translated ? It only brings confusion to this agrument: this article doesn't make one mention of climate change.
知识分子的价值就在于讲真话，但在怒江问题上，有些学者明显被水电公司收买，说的些牵强附会的道理真让人遗憾！
Intellectuals should safeguard their status by telling the truth. But on the Nu River dam issue, some scholars are obviously bought off by water power companies. They thus compromise their reports. This is a great pity!
Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated.
我们建议你在评论后署名, 以便其他浏览者能更好地与你交流。你没有必要使用真名，但你的署名将会协助我们维护网站的信息交流畅通。
We suggest you add your name to your comments so that other readers can respond to you more easily. You don’t have to use your real name, but providing a name will help make communication clearer for other forum participants.
除非其他申明,本网站及其内容受知识共享组织的“署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎"2.0 英国：英格兰和威尔士协议和 2.5 中国大陆协议的保护。
Unless otherwise stated, this work is under Creative Commons' Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License and 2.5 China License.