already have a tax...  

the official announcement of a carbon tax is highly symbolic. in fact, china already has many effective taxes in place. the measly price of CNY 10/t, I'm sure there are many sector specific policies that cause a much higher effective abatement cost than this, such as small plant closures program. also the renewable energy surcharge of CNY 0.008/kWh, is actually CNY 8/t effective carbon tax as well given about 1 t co2 emitted per MWh of electricity produced.

any western mainstream media will run this article?  

Many thanks for the authors' arguments here. WSJ has been owned by the News Corporation and they tend to use very eye-catching headlines and "thrilling" articles. Again, the Chinese are not very good at marketing their own efforts in main stream western media, in which the politics are dominating. Before the Chinese media can have influential voice in the international arena, perhaps China Dialogue is the best stage to showcase different voices from China. Well done!
Just to point out a small typo appearing in the first paragraph: 匪人所思的言论 should be 匪夷所思的言论.

Mistake

The author column on the right should be Lin Mingche, not Yand Mingche.

Perception  

The earnestness and seriousness of the research effort put forth should not be questioned. However, the problem that Mr. Lee may have been picking up on is that EVERY decision made by the Chinese government, especially the ones that are made public, is political. If not, then why the need for such offices as the SCIO, the SCRTF, or the propaganda department? I don’t assume that these offices necessarily have anything to do with the environmental research or the details of the policy itself, but they absolutely have a say in what is said, when it is said, and how much is said about the policy (in fact any policy).
As for a carbon tax needing to “properly account for a country’s phase of development”, I find this statement utterly cliché. Exacty what does this mean? I don’t really know. Is it an excuse meant to give China more leeway in developing policy? If not, then please enlighten me. I live in Beijing and let me tell you, in many ways Beijing is a highly developed modern city.

Perception 2  

And yet, I am constantly bombarded by just such an argument—because China is a developing country, so the problems and injustices that exist in Beijing (and around the country) can be somehow easier to accept or even ignore.

As for developing countries being bad at PR, unfortunately in China’s case, I don’t think China’s perception in the West has a lot to do with its stage of development. For example, Americans in general have a relatively positive view of India. The Western (especially American) perception is, whether one likes it or not, tainted more by perceived political system than economic development. My sneaking suspicion is that when the term “developing country” is used by the higher-ups in China, that it might be a codeword for “socialist country”, or perhaps “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. I implore someone to please explain to me exactly what socialism with Chinese characteristics is.

As for notions of conspiracy theory, again, I don’t think it can be denied that certain high-ups have certain agendas and certain reasons for portraying events in certain ways in China.

Perception 3  

If the US government was to require that a news source do this or that, this would be considered a “government conspiracy”. This happens every day in China. This kind of government activity is frowned upon in the West. But it is relatively acceptable in China. Is a conspiracy only a conspiracy if people consider it a conspiracy?
Anyways, if the Chinese policy improves the environment, then good for China and good for the world. But politics simply cannot be removed from the equation. Especially in today’s hyper-realist international arena, political advantage is always a concern. Until the day that the zero-sum game is rejected and the possibility of mutual prosperity is recognized, it will continue to be a concern.

Misinformation on China dampens action in developed countries  

Climate mitigation policies in developed countries are strongly influenced by what China does. Here in Australia, many labour under the misapprehension that Australia is 'going it alone' or 'moving first' be implementing a carbon tax and that we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage. A common phrase is 'China is building this many coal fired power plants per day, why should we limit our own emissions, when Australia's overall contribution to climate change is so small?'

People like John Lee and the Australian conservative opposition have a lot to answer for in spreading deliberate misinformation on China's efforts. The situation is complicated and China is by no means a climate warrior internationally (China's recent ban on its airlines opting into the EU air-travel carbon tax is a case in point). But China is not exactly dragging its feet. It is taking truly bold action on climate change domestically. The more people realise this, the better the odds for stronger action in developed countries.

Right Wing Mainstream Media is Required to Lie About China's Environmental Policies  

When you cannot explain the clear and painful facts that a well regulated, centrally controlled economy performs over the long and short terms far better than chaotic, irrational, "law of the jungle" economic systems, you have to, to be very clear, simply lie.

It is obvious that the Chinese government understands the value of moving forward with haste to develop low carbon, low pollution forms of energy. This transition will be expensive in the short term, but will reap huge benefits for China in the medium to long term.

China uses scientific analysis to decide key economic decisions as opposed to utterly corrupted politicians financed by big business, for whom the status quo is very profitable. Very powerful computers and information systems ensure that the scientific approach will ensure increasingly efficient, near optimum, economic decision making in well-managed economic systems, like China's.