Pollution tax

Pollution tax! Please don’t impose it, as we are already overloaded by host of taxes and duties how come we pay another tax. It is common reaction if we tell someone that they are gone be taxed for another reason. Just kidding, it’s not a tax for all. It is to be imposed on those who pollute.

Polluter pay principle is widely recognized formula to tax the polluter. It means one who pollutes has to rectify his or her wrongdoings by offsetting the harmful effects. How? If you pollute the air by your factory just plant hundreds of trees in the vicinity to mitigate the negative effects of industrial emissions. If you run a huge hospital which creates infectious waste you must install an appropriate technology to remove the harmful effects of that infectious waste. Appropriate technology can be incinerator if it emits zero emissions or auto clave which neutralize the infectious elements from such waste.

If you are a development organization assigned to construct bridges, roads and subways then wherever you have to cut trees to do your job you must plant double number of trees alongside your project to compensate the tree cutting made to carryout your project.

All such measures are compensatory in nature and it is not called pollution tax. The concept of pollution tax is something different. It entails that instead of doing offsetting work by yourself wherever you hurt environment either willfully or without any intention you have to pay for it. There is a pollution collection tax in certain very advanced countries and all industries and other emittingorganizations have to pay tax for the acts of polluting. However, in most of the countries this concept is still under debate and in least developed countries it is widely expected that it takes long time to be implemented. In some western countries levy of pollution tax is almost done and just its implementation mechanism is to be promulgated.

Debate is going on about how to calculate the pollution tax and how to fix its rate. This is really a hot debate. One school of thought is of the opinion that polluter under certain guidelines itself decide how much he or she should pay. It is a smart idea but its success depends upon environmental honesty of polluter. It is argued that a polluter can’t be an environmentally honest person.

Another school of thought says that there must be correlation between amount of pollution and level of damages caused by an act of polluting and then it should be quantified and a rate is calculated to impose on polluter. Here difficulty arises on how to evaluate the amount of pollution and in relation to what. In relation to entire pollution of that area or we just weigh it according to its excess to prescribed limit of pollution. Similarly damages of pollution do not appear instantly and take quite larger time. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate the damages in quantified terms.

Another group of experts opine that there should be fixed rate of pollution on the basis of pollution at source. Like it can be assessed at the exit point of chimney of a factory or outer drain of the effluent of an industry that how much pollution in excess o fallowable limits it is causing and on the basis of that estimated rate should be fixed as pollution tax which may vary from industry to industry or sector to sector.

It is expected that the concept of pollution tax would get cleared in next five years when this practice would be fully matured in western countries and it would become case study for other less developed countries to follow the suit.