文章 Articles

A tax on breathing?

A Beijing scientist is being criticised for supposedly suggesting a levy on exhaling carbon dioxide. Li Taige explores whether the Chinese public is huffing and puffing over nothing.

Article image

Public faith in scientists seems to be in decline in China, as evidenced by the huge controversy arising from a recent speech by a Beijing ecologist.

Jiang Youxu is a scientist with the Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection at the Chinese Academy of Forestry, as well as a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Speaking at the China Forest and City Forum in Guangzhou on November 18, he described the significance of forests for the urban ecosystem.

After the forum, the Chinese public was presented with a new concept: a “breathing tax”. Jiang – branded a villain for wanting to inflict such a tax on average city-dwellers – immediately became the target of criticism and abuse on the Internet.

One online songwriter even came up with the “The Breathing Tax Song”, to the tune of a classic hit by the late pop star Teresa Tang (Deng Lijun):

Academician Jiang, named Youxu,
proposes a carbon tax on you,
for we are all a pollution source
and living makes you a criminal force.

Guangzhou’s New Bulletin was one of the first media outlets to report on Jiang’s speech. In an article that was soon to be widely republished, it said: “Yesterday, at the China Forest and City Forum held in Guangzhou, member of the Chinese Academy of Science Jiang Youxu called for the government to consider imposing an environmental tax on businesses or even CO2-emitting citizens … Jiang believes that since all citizens are emitters of CO2 [carbon dioxide], they should pay the costs of reducing energy use and cutting emissions”. Jiang was then quoted as saying: “Making citizens contribute 20 yuan [US$3] to an environmental fund every month could be considered.”

The Guangzhou reporter seems to have confused environmental taxes and environmental funds. In my experience as a science reporter, Chinese media reports sometimes misinterpret what scientists say.

According to the original audio transcription of Jiang’s speech, his actual words were: “As urban forests have so many obvious beneficial functions, shouldn’t we further consider the idea of an environmental tax? … [Since] every city-dweller is putting out carbon, we could give 10 or 20 yuan to a fund [and] this money could be used for reforestation, or businesses could use the money from the taxes to plant urban forests.”

Contrary to assertions, then, it seems that Jiang did not mention a “breathing tax”. Unfortunately for him, however, online media outlets republished the report with an embellished headline designed to attract readership and attention: “Academic calls for ‘breathing tax’, 20 yuan per person per month to protect the environment”.

I have to admire the editor who came up with this idea of a “breathing tax”. As clever as it may be, however, the contribution of our respiration to total CO2 emissions is minute compared to other sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, such as cars, industry and power generation. The phrase “breathing tax” has only misled and angered the public, as there would be no way to escape such a tax. Clearly, this is not what Jiang intended.

What he actually proposed was a fund to which citizens could contribute voluntarily, with the proceeds used to plant forests and offset carbon emissions. In fact, China already has something similar – the China Green Carbon Fund, launched by the State Forestry Administration and the China Green Foundation.

Founded in July 2007, the China Green Carbon Fund is a national public investment scheme which does not, and cannot, force the public to donate on a monthly basis. It aims to provide a platform for businesses, groups and individuals to participate in climate-change mitigation measures such as tree-planting, forest creation and forest management. The China National Petroleum Corporation made the first donation of 300 million yuan (US$44 million).

Of course, some say that Jiang’s “20 yuan per person per month” is no different from an environmental tax and argue that he has not considered the varying responsibilities for emissions between China’s rich and poor. However, Jiang is one of the 12 members of the National Climate Change Expert Committee -- a climate change think tank – and undoubtedly is aware of the divide between rich and poor in China. How could he suggest collecting the same level of emissions tax from all?

If he had suggested such a thing, then perhaps the abuse he has received was not undeserved. However, the question remains: did the media accurately and objectively report his actual speech?

To an extent, the fuss over the “breathing tax” reflects both sloppy reporting and a lack of in-depth knowledge regarding climate change among Chinese media workers.

But more importantly, the whole story demonstrates the chasm that separates scientists, the news media and the public. China’s press has a lot of work to do on reporting accurately about climate change.

  

Li Taige is a Beijing-based journalist. He obtained a master’s degree in engineering from Sichuan University in 1997 and was a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2003-04.

Homepage photo by Stitch

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

要把眼界放宽

本文作者很好地给我们提了个醒:尽管新闻报道中的错误十分常见,但更重要的问题在于科学家,媒体与公共大众之间的误解。这些误解常常导致严重的矛盾和问题。也许应该号召更多的科学家行记者之职,或者向大众普及气候变化的基本知识。将这一知识的沟壑填补以后,我们才能去抗击气候变化!
--Crystal,美国
(本评论由Zheng Shen翻译)

Looking at the big picture.

The author does a great job of reminding us that while mistakes in reporting are rather common, the more important point is that scientists, the media, and the public misunderstand each other in a way that leads to serious problems. Maybe we should have more scientists working as journalists, or maybe we should teach the basics of climate change to the public? This chasm needs to be closed before we can fight climate change!

-Crystal, US

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

把复杂问题讲明白

有很多环保问题我都搞得很糊涂.希望专家们把记者培训好,记者们把文章写明白. 大家都明白了很多事情就好办,现在都是雾里看花.

Have the complex issues out with public

There are a great number of envoronmental questions I am puzzled.I hope that experts cultivate reporters well,and reporters write easy article for public.Then everyyhing is simple to do.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

还有更多有关于国家气候变化专家委员会的消息么?

文章中“国家气候变化专家委员会”的链接指向了一份今年早些时候公布的气候变化白皮书。希望提供关于这个委员会的更多消息,比如成员都有哪些。
(本评论由Zheng Shen翻译)

any more information on the Climate Change Expert Committee?

The link in the article to the "National Climate Change Expert Committee" does nothing but take us to the White Paper on climate change that was released earlier this year.Is there any more information about who these people are?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

冰雪融化在继续!降污减排再升级!

改变气候环境必须标本兼治!降污减排(是外因)绝非救命稻草!只有【地球新工程】可从根本解决全球气候变暖问题!又是人类一把万能钥匙!---权利危机·金融危机·粮食危机·水危机·就业危机·老年幸福······希望地球人都知道!更期待国际的专家学者及决策者早日认同!!!地球人类一个家!功过理应有问责!事实会证明一切!!!!

The glaciers continue to melt! Pollution is again increasing!

The cause of the climate change problem must be addressed! We need to reduce dirty emissions and the destruction of the land. We can only solve the global warming problem if it is the whole world’s undertaking. An innumerable amount of people are critical to solve our political, financial, foodstuff and water crises! I believe the whole world knows that our lucky years are now past. Many more international experts and scholars need to come up with a plan that can be approved. The whole world needs to come together. We all have the same responsibility. The facts have made the truth clear.