Experience tells us the traditional environmental pollution control and environmental protection measures are not enough to resolve pollution problems. Therefore, we need the combined weight of macro-economic, industrial and fiscal policies to contain environmental degradation.

Not realistic

Liu Changhai (Chinese Business Morning View): Results of the first national census of pollution sources jointly conducted by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the National Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of Agriculture show nitrogen oxides emitted by cars account for 30 percent of all such emissions, exerting a negative impact on the urban atmosphere. In agriculture, a great deal of pollution comes from animal husbandry. The chemical oxygen demand and total nitrogen and phosphorus emissions in husbandry comprise 96 percent, 38 percent and 56 percent respectively of agriculture's total.

Therefore, we can see that once an environmental tax is levied, car owners and farmers will bear the full brunt. Since the pollution they cause is the chief culprit in environmental degradation, the imposition of tax on them seems understandable. But the environment is an integrated system, and its problems cannot be resolved through tax collection.

For instance, the amount of car emissions is closely tied to various other factors. The performance of engines and quality of fuel exert imperative influences on emissions, and that is clearly not the responsibility of car owners. Farmers are relatively less affluent and lack technology and capital. The environmental tax will only raise their production costs, which will be passed on in the prices of meat, eggs and milk. As a result, it would place a greater burden on consumers.

Development cannot be achieved at the cost of the environment or vice versa. It is our responsibility to cope with climate change, but a healthy environment does not come at the expense of increasing poverty and economic degradation.

When considering the adoption of a new tax, the government must think twice.

Wu Jie (Xin'an Evening News): It is understandable if the government imposes an environmental tax on businesses and individuals responsible for environmental pollution. But if a new tax created under the pretext of environmental protection only increased financial burdens on polluters, it will do less help to the environment in the long run. To resolve all doubts about the tax, the government should provide information about its use. That is to say, revenues from the environmental tax must be used for pollution control and environmental protection. Otherwise, the tax is not warranted.

It is too optimistic to think pollution can be wiped out through taxation. In reality, many polluting enterprises, as long as they pay for pollutant disposal, continue to pour huge amounts of sewage into rivers and lakes.

Before abruptly imposing a new tax, the government should work out a precise report on feasibility to see if the tax would really help reduce pollution. Or it could only turn into a new charge enabling the disposal of pollutants.

Bi Shicheng (www.hsw.cn): In the light of the experiences of developed countries, taxing auto emissions or other pollutants indeed restrains the growth of car ownership and reduces air pollution to a certain extent. That is why the consideration of an environmental tax has emerged against a backdrop of China becoming the biggest auto market in the world. But judging by the current situation, the implementation of an environmental tax must first face much debate about its rationality.

First of all, does it mean double taxation? Currently, vehicle purchase, fuel and consumption taxes have all already covered pollution. If the government believes those taxes are not cutting pollution back, and it is still on the rise, is it really necessary to create something like an auto emission tax? On second thoughts, will the proposed auto emission tax rescue us from environmental pollution? At present, some government departments rely heavily on the creation of new taxes to change some old patterns or habits, but the results are not at all convincing.

Of course those who do not drive a car might welcome a new environmental tax because the fewer people driving, the better the traffic situation and air quality will be. But is this the right logic? A major responsibility of the government is to make people's life better. Will the tax do no more than imposing another tax burden on the people? I doubt it.

Fu Weigang (Oriental Morning Post): Environmental tax has been levied in many developed countries. But is China ready for such dramatic change? Not really.

The tax burden on China's businesses and individuals is already heavy. Worse still, the people always have no idea how local governments spend tax revenues. How can they believe the revenues brought about by collecting an environmental tax will be put to best use?