Taxing polluters is no solution

The introduction of 'green tax' from the current fiscal year (FY) does otherwise serve as a pointer to government's recognition of the adverse effects of pollution, caused by a growing number of industries, on public health. Under the new Finance Act, the 'green tax' has, thus, been imposed on industries that produce and emit pollution. Under the provisions of the relevant section of this Act, an industry will have to pay a 1.0 per cent surcharge for polluting environment and causing health hazards. The Value Added Tax (VAT) authorities have been assigned the task of collecting the surcharge. Environment-polluting industrial units will accordingly collect the surcharge on prices of all types of their products. The ministry of environment has been directed to list environment-hazardous industries, including those which don't have effluent-treatment plants (ETPs). Such measures have been enforced, with effect from July 01, 2014, under 'Environment Protection Surcharge Collection Rules 2014' and 'Health Development Surcharge Collection Rules 2014'.

All chemical industries, tanneries, fertiliser factories, paper mills, textile dyeing and other units are the major pollutants. Even a small-scale industry called 'electroplating' is among the booming pollutants in Bangladesh. The industry is rampant mainly in Dholaikhal area of the capital where chemicals, used in sanitary materials, are discharged directly into the water bodies. Its degrees of pollution are quite high. The acidwaste of the jewellery-making units in the capital also flows through its drainage system. The hazardous heavy metals such as chromium, lead and sulphuric acid are not only polluting rivers but are also affecting human bodies when such waters are used for washing or processing vegetables and other food items.

Will then taxes from polluting industries mean more income from hazardous units for the public exchequer? The money so collected, according to the government's decision, is to be spent on protection of environment and for  health-related development purposes. But it is not really understandable how the environment would be protected at a time when polluting industrial units will be allowed to release pollutants. Such an environment tax in its present form, as environmentalists have quite rightly expressed their fear, would only legitimise pollution and cause more health hazards for the citizens. The introduction of eco-tax in this manner 'leaves thus ample scope for raising questions about its rationale.

It is for the government to make it plain and clear to the entrepreneurs that they should take effective steps to set up effluent treatment plants (ETPs) in their industries to protect environment from pollution. But there has been no effective step so far to this effect. The government needs to amend the effectiveness of the existing environmental law by way of insertion of a provision in it to empower the local government bodies so that their representatives can file cases against polluters if the level of pollution crosses the danger mark. The imposition of one per cent green tax on polluters will not help much to protect the environment. Rather, the reverse might happen. The polluters will be making their efforts to foot the bill on account of the new tax, by realising its full amount, ultimately from customers and consumers and then keep on polluting the environment.  Eco-tax needs to be imposed on polluters at an increasing rate, setting a deadline to stop pollution. If the polluters fail to arrest pollution within the given time, then such industries should be phased out.