论文部分内容阅读
It has been reported that the government of Kunming, capital of southwest China’s Yunnan Province, is considering levying a 10-yuan ($1.59) pollution fee per day on tourists in the area near the Dianchi Lake, the largest freshwater lake and a major tourist site in the province. The fee collection plan is up for legal assessment and is awaiting final approval by authorities.
The news drew the attention of the public. Some agree with the Kunming Government, holding that the measure could help raise visitors’ awareness of environmental protection, but more argue that it is unfair to force all visitors (about 40 million a year) to pay for the pollution treatment. Statistics suggest that the lake’s pollution is caused mainly by the area’s rising population, expanding industries and widespread use of fertilizers in nearby farmlands. Tourists are not the real problem. The following are excerpts of some opinions.
Supporters
Yu Xiangrong (www.voc.com.cn): It’s somewhat reasonable to solve the pollution problem through economic means. Natural resources are limited, and you have to pay for your use of the resources. Those who pollute should be held accountable in treating pollution, so it’s all right to charge the tourists. In addition, collecting pollution fees from tourists does not mean not to punish polluting factories.
The pollution of the Dianchi Lake has long been a problem. In recent years, the pollution is becoming increasingly worse and is listed among the State Council’s major pollution treatment programs. Although the government has already spent billions of yuan to deal with the problem, together with a series of treatment measures, there are still no notable achievements.
Since the source of pollution is industrial and daily sewage, the key to controlling pollution is to curb the discharge of wastewater from the two sources. In recent years, pollution treatment is consistently outpaced by pollution, so it’s important to change the old mindset in the real practice of pollution treatment. Prevention is much more effective and important than clean-up.
The plan to collect pollution fees might be regarded as part of prevention. However, still we must make it clear that tourists are not the major cause of the pollution of the lake. Though economic means may not be the most effective way to prevent pollution, there must be some rigid rules. To some extent, charging pollution fees is only a supplement to the many ways of pollution prevention, and local authorities have missed a key part of pollution treatment by targeting tourists alone.
Ma Diming (Guangzhou Daily): It’s acceptable to levy pollution fees on tourists, but you must first make the process transparent and ensure effective results.
Some people think the collection of pollution fees is unreasonable and blame locals for the pollution of the lake. They think these polluting enterprises should be first closed down. However, we can’t say that tourists have nothing to do with the environment pollution of the Dianchi Lake. As long as there are human activities, there will be an impact on the surrounding environment. You can collect pollution fees and go after the big polluters at the same time.
The most important thing here is to make the fee collection process and the pollution treatment process transparent. What the public is most disgusted with may not be pollution fee collection, but they are worried that the collected money will not be used for pollution treatment.
Meanwhile, closing down the worst offenders is something that must be done. If you collect pollution fees while turning a blind eye to polluters, it’s really unfair. It’s not that the pollution fee can’t be collected, but the precondition is clear: be transparent about everything related to the program.
Opponents
Yu Jing (www.voc.com.cn): Generally speaking, tourists who can afford to travel will not care about the 10-yuan pollution fee. But no matter what amount the fee is, the charge is somewhat unreasonable.
Visitors will inflict a certain impact on the local ecological environment, but the pollution of the lake is mainly caused by local people’s daily wastewater and industrial sewage. It is ridiculous to levy pollution fees on visitors from afar while the pollution is caused by local forces.
Besides, it’s not easy to locate every tourist in big or small hotels in the area around the lake, and so how can local authorities successfully implement their plans? And how to ensure that the collected pollution fees will be spent on the protection of the lake?
My suggestion is that the local government should examine themselves and their own motivations before collecting so-called pollution fees from tourists. It is the priority of the locals to refuse any practices that might cause pollution to the lake.
Ding Zhaolin (www.cnr.cn): If the so-called pollution fee is really spent on protecting the ecological environment around the lake, most people will not refuse to contribute some money. However, we have found that in the past decades China has spent about 20 billion yuan ($3.17 billion) on ecological protection. What is the result of the huge financial input? Where is the improvement? When such huge amounts are unable to do the job of ecological protection, who will be willing to contribute their hard-earned money to invisible programs? The public needs to know where the money is spent.
On the other hand, the pollution of the Dianchi Lake is not done by tourists, but clearly by nearby factories and the overdevel- opment of the scenic attraction. Isn’t it unfair to charge the tourists for damage they didn’t inflict?
Fan Zijun (China Business Herald): When tourists come to the Dianchi Lake, they are already contributing to local hotels, restaurants and scenic spots. They are the source of money for the local tourism, so it’s unreasonable to ask them to pay extra money when they have already paid for every service they’ve got.
In the name of protecting local ecological environment, the fee collection plan covers six counties and districts around the lake. Every tourist is supposed to pay 10 yuan for each day’s stay. Such an ambitious fee collection program is astonishing.
The local government should not use environmental protection as an excuse to make money. They should allocate some of the tourism incomes to local ecological and environmental improvement, so that they can attract more tourists in the future. Now, however, they want to transfer the environmental cost to tourists when it is the locals themselves who should be responsible for the result. Such a short-sighted plan could drive potential tourists away.
The deterioration of the local ecological environment is caused by illegal commercial development and improper disposal of wastewater by some companies. If the local government targets tourists instead of the real troublemakers, it’s unfair and will do nothing to help the local ecological environment.
The news drew the attention of the public. Some agree with the Kunming Government, holding that the measure could help raise visitors’ awareness of environmental protection, but more argue that it is unfair to force all visitors (about 40 million a year) to pay for the pollution treatment. Statistics suggest that the lake’s pollution is caused mainly by the area’s rising population, expanding industries and widespread use of fertilizers in nearby farmlands. Tourists are not the real problem. The following are excerpts of some opinions.
Supporters
Yu Xiangrong (www.voc.com.cn): It’s somewhat reasonable to solve the pollution problem through economic means. Natural resources are limited, and you have to pay for your use of the resources. Those who pollute should be held accountable in treating pollution, so it’s all right to charge the tourists. In addition, collecting pollution fees from tourists does not mean not to punish polluting factories.
The pollution of the Dianchi Lake has long been a problem. In recent years, the pollution is becoming increasingly worse and is listed among the State Council’s major pollution treatment programs. Although the government has already spent billions of yuan to deal with the problem, together with a series of treatment measures, there are still no notable achievements.
Since the source of pollution is industrial and daily sewage, the key to controlling pollution is to curb the discharge of wastewater from the two sources. In recent years, pollution treatment is consistently outpaced by pollution, so it’s important to change the old mindset in the real practice of pollution treatment. Prevention is much more effective and important than clean-up.
The plan to collect pollution fees might be regarded as part of prevention. However, still we must make it clear that tourists are not the major cause of the pollution of the lake. Though economic means may not be the most effective way to prevent pollution, there must be some rigid rules. To some extent, charging pollution fees is only a supplement to the many ways of pollution prevention, and local authorities have missed a key part of pollution treatment by targeting tourists alone.
Ma Diming (Guangzhou Daily): It’s acceptable to levy pollution fees on tourists, but you must first make the process transparent and ensure effective results.
Some people think the collection of pollution fees is unreasonable and blame locals for the pollution of the lake. They think these polluting enterprises should be first closed down. However, we can’t say that tourists have nothing to do with the environment pollution of the Dianchi Lake. As long as there are human activities, there will be an impact on the surrounding environment. You can collect pollution fees and go after the big polluters at the same time.
The most important thing here is to make the fee collection process and the pollution treatment process transparent. What the public is most disgusted with may not be pollution fee collection, but they are worried that the collected money will not be used for pollution treatment.
Meanwhile, closing down the worst offenders is something that must be done. If you collect pollution fees while turning a blind eye to polluters, it’s really unfair. It’s not that the pollution fee can’t be collected, but the precondition is clear: be transparent about everything related to the program.
Opponents
Yu Jing (www.voc.com.cn): Generally speaking, tourists who can afford to travel will not care about the 10-yuan pollution fee. But no matter what amount the fee is, the charge is somewhat unreasonable.
Visitors will inflict a certain impact on the local ecological environment, but the pollution of the lake is mainly caused by local people’s daily wastewater and industrial sewage. It is ridiculous to levy pollution fees on visitors from afar while the pollution is caused by local forces.
Besides, it’s not easy to locate every tourist in big or small hotels in the area around the lake, and so how can local authorities successfully implement their plans? And how to ensure that the collected pollution fees will be spent on the protection of the lake?
My suggestion is that the local government should examine themselves and their own motivations before collecting so-called pollution fees from tourists. It is the priority of the locals to refuse any practices that might cause pollution to the lake.
Ding Zhaolin (www.cnr.cn): If the so-called pollution fee is really spent on protecting the ecological environment around the lake, most people will not refuse to contribute some money. However, we have found that in the past decades China has spent about 20 billion yuan ($3.17 billion) on ecological protection. What is the result of the huge financial input? Where is the improvement? When such huge amounts are unable to do the job of ecological protection, who will be willing to contribute their hard-earned money to invisible programs? The public needs to know where the money is spent.
On the other hand, the pollution of the Dianchi Lake is not done by tourists, but clearly by nearby factories and the overdevel- opment of the scenic attraction. Isn’t it unfair to charge the tourists for damage they didn’t inflict?
Fan Zijun (China Business Herald): When tourists come to the Dianchi Lake, they are already contributing to local hotels, restaurants and scenic spots. They are the source of money for the local tourism, so it’s unreasonable to ask them to pay extra money when they have already paid for every service they’ve got.
In the name of protecting local ecological environment, the fee collection plan covers six counties and districts around the lake. Every tourist is supposed to pay 10 yuan for each day’s stay. Such an ambitious fee collection program is astonishing.
The local government should not use environmental protection as an excuse to make money. They should allocate some of the tourism incomes to local ecological and environmental improvement, so that they can attract more tourists in the future. Now, however, they want to transfer the environmental cost to tourists when it is the locals themselves who should be responsible for the result. Such a short-sighted plan could drive potential tourists away.
The deterioration of the local ecological environment is caused by illegal commercial development and improper disposal of wastewater by some companies. If the local government targets tourists instead of the real troublemakers, it’s unfair and will do nothing to help the local ecological environment.