"中国目前环境违法成本平均不及治理成本的10%，不到危害代价的20%",这样算来污染治理成本比污染的危害代价还要高一倍，是数据有误吗？

Tao

In the article it is reported that currently in China the cost of breaking laws (penalty) is less than 10% pollution control cost and less than 20% of environmental damage cost.

So this implies that pollution control could be twice that of the environmental damage cost. Are the statistics wrong?

Tao

你的理解是正确的，那就是污染治理成本有可能比污染的危害代价还要高。部分原因是污染造成的环境危害损失总是被低估了。

此外，作者在这里引用了违法，治理和危害成本三概念的目的是在强调中国环境法律的不力。

至于环境的治理成本和危害成本之间的关系并不是你所理解的这样简单。如何来计算污染对环境的危害如今还是一个未解的课题，这也是绿色GDP计算面临的问题。

此外，即便污染治理成本比污染的危害代价还高，这也不应该成为放任污染不加治理的理由。

王冬莹

Your understanding is right, that is pollution control cost could be higher than that of environmental damage. Part of the reasons is pollution's environmental impact (cost) is usually underestimated.

Meanwhile, the author compared the three costs to show the weakness of China's environmental laws.

It is not as simple as you understand regarding the comparison between pollution control cost and environmental damage cost.

So far, it is still an unsolved issue regarding the methods of calculating the cost of enviromental damage. This is also the issue facing Green GDP accounting.

Even if pollution control costs more than damaging the environment, this should be the reason for us not to take measures to protect our environment.

by Dongying Wang

中国如要解决环境问题，需解决贫富差距。

To solve the environmental problems in China,
the country needs first to narrow the disparities between the rich and poor provinces.

我没有调查过，但我还是怀疑，江苏环保的好是以中国落后省份的差为代价的。污染从富裕地向贫困地区转移，从发达国家向发展中国家转移，这是一个普遍的现象。江苏是中国最富裕的省份之一，恐怕也难逃此过。

Though I haven't investigated, I still think that Jiangsu's success in envivronmental protection is achieved at cost of underdeveloped provinces in China.

Pollution is usually transferred from rich to poverty-stricken areas, from developed countries to developing nations. This phenomenon is a commonplace.

Jiangsu is one of the affluent provinces in China, so the province could be a case of the phenomenon.

我理解您的意思，之所以指出来，是觉得这句话有误导之嫌。环境危害的准确评价一直都是国际研究的热点，同时也是难点，至今没有特别满意的结果。但是对环境危害的估价如果在现有技术情况下被低估，特别是当一些非市场化的环境价值不能被包括进环境危害评价的时候，应该明确指出危害代价难以准确估量，但是明显要比现在可计算的环境污染代价高。

在绝大部分情况下，尤其是在中国这样的污染严重的国家，由于污染程度高，环境治理的边际成本要远低于污染程度较低的发达国家，也远低于环境污染的边际损失。这是由于，从大体上来说，环境治理的边际成本随污染程度降低而升高，而环境污染的边际损失随污染程度而升高。否则的话，如果告诉大家环境治理成本要高于污染损失，根据环境经济的理论，相对于投入更高的治理成本，污染者可以选择污染，然后补偿给社会所造成的环境损失，社会作为一个整体所承受的经济损失要小于投入高成本治理污染的损失。当然这是在环境污染损失没有被低估的情况下，在一些污染水平较低的地区或国家可能出现的情况。

经济活动或人类的生存本身都会造成一定程度的污染，环境保护的目的不是要完全禁绝污染，而是把污染的程度控制在自然环境正常的纳污能力范围内，同时尽量见小对生态环境的影响。绝对为零的污染几乎是不可能实现的，更有意义的是确定这个比较适宜的污染程度，既不会对生态环境和自然资源造成破坏性的影响，也不会让社会付出过高的社会成本去消灭自然环境可以正常自净的污染。对于一个亟待消灭贫困而又承受着严重环境污染的发展中国家，同时对于一个越来越多使用经济机制（如排污权交易，排污者付费）而不是简单的行政命令来控制污染的政府，把握好两者的关系是至关重要的。因此，那句话给出的“在中国目前治理成本比危害代价还要高”的理解会有误导作用，也会让环境保护的经济机制的制定（如合理的排污权总量或排污付费标准）更偏向允许污染而不是消除污染。在没有比较准确的环境污染损失评估前，将低估的危害代价和治污成本相提并论是不应该提倡的。从媒体的角度，这会给大多数普通但热心环保的读者留下错误的印象。

Tao

I understand what you say. I think the sentence is misleading, that is why I pointed it out.

How to achieve accurate environmental damage cost has been a hot international topic, and a thorny issue as well. So far, there are no satisfactory calculating methods yet.

But under the current situation with poor technology support and impact of market factors, we should make it clear that it is difficult to calculate environmental damage cost. And obviously, actual cost of environmental damage is higher than figure issued.

In most cases, especially in China, which is highly polluted, its marginal cost in pollution control is lower than that in developed countries with less pollution, and also much lower than the marginal environmental damage cost.

This is because marginal cost in pollution control will rise along with decreasing pollution situation in a country, meanwhile marginal cost of environmental damage will rise along with the rising pollution situation.

Otherwise, to the public it means pollution control costs more than environmental damage.
Then polluters will choose to pollute instead of taking costly actions to control pollution, and then they could just compensate for the environmental loss.

Of course, what I mention above is based on that the environmental cost is not underestimated.

Environmental protection does not aim to ban pollution, but to control it within the capacity that the nature is able to accommodate, and to minimize its impact upon ecosystem.

Zero pollution is impossible. What really makes sense is to identify the pollution extent (limit) which is moderate and tolerable. Then the pollution within the limit would not cause devastating impact upon ecosystem and natural resources. Meanwhile, we could avoid too high social cost to cut the pollution which the nature is capable of coping with.

China is facing tasks to help people out of poverty and meanwhile to deal with its serious pollution. The market system is introduced to deal with pollution control. Under these circumstances, it is of great importance to identify the pollution limit.

In conclusion, we should not compare the pollution control cost with that of environmental damage. Otherwise, readers will be misled.

Tao

江苏没有污染么? 不是,大家可以去搜索下2001年盛泽污染事件,这件事受到中央领导的高度重视.可见江苏算是吃一堑,长一智. 另一方面.江苏的水质直接影响到上海的水质.上海又是重要的经济中心,世界大都市.来自上海和浙江的影响让江苏不得不治理污染.
另本人学的是环境科学,对于污染和治理的成本.为什么能占危害成本的20%而只占治理成本的10%,是因为我们没有完善的污染危害评估,对生态的长期的影响,并没有也不易计算量化,而且对于治理来说,其实是根本恢复不了原有的生态环境水平的.从某种方面来说,污染对生态造成的危害是无法估量的.那是对世代的物种的影响,只是这些短时间还看不出来.
本人就是来自于人居城市- 扬州.扬州作为一个消费旅游型城市,污染少是因为它的经济收入来源多数是旅游收入,房屋出租等,工作多数为服务行业,工业很少.

Is there no pollution in Jiangsu?the answer is no,you can search the "Shengze Pollution Event" which has drawed high
attention from the goverment leaders.so Jiangsu did learn the motto "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit".
on the other hand,Jiangsu's water quality exert a direct influence on Shanghai's,and Shanghai is a economic center,metropolis
the pressure from Shanghai and Zhejiang forces Jiangsu to take effort to reduce pollution.
I studied environmental science,the reason why the pollution and treatment cost account for hazard cost 20% but only occupy
treatment cost 10% is that we failed to build a perfect pollution hazard assessment system,it is not easy to quantify the
long term impact on ecology and also it is impossible to restore the original entironment level.
from certain aspects,it is unevaluable for the pollution-caused hazard to the ecology,because that is the impact on species for
generations,which can not be seen right now.
I am from a beautiful city-Yangzhou,as a consuming and tour oriented city,most revenues are from tour industry and house rent
less heavy industry,more service industry, so that's the reason why there are less pollution.

中国能源网上2005年8月有篇文章，讲到江苏省排污权交易遭遇困境。
首段如下：“排污权交易是一个世界难题，南通早在2001年就试验成功了。但在接下来的四年里，只成功进行了5起交易，是什么阻挡了排污权交易的实施？ ”
链接
我很怀疑江苏省能在短短一年内扭转困境。
舆论关注环保是我所期待的，但是如果没有把事实的全部报道出来，这篇报道就没有意义了。

In August 2005, the Chinese Resource website published an article stating that Jiangsu province's pollution rights trade was experiencing difficulties. The opening passage read: "The pollution rights trade is a complex global dilemma. Although Nantong already ran a successful experiment in 2001, it was only able to carry out five trade transactions in the ensuing four years. What stood in the way of implementing the pollution rights trade?" You can access this article here I harbor serious doubts about Jiangsu province's ability to turn around this difficult situation within the short space of a year. Although I welcome public debate that focuses on environmental conservation, the above article serves no purpose unless it comprehensively relates all the facts.