In the early 1990s, China introduced into its civil legal system the punitive damages system derived from the Anglo-American legal tradition, marking a significant legislative breakthrough among civil law countries. Currently, China is one of the countries with the greatest pressure to reduce emissions in the world, and more effective legal tools are needed for environmental governance. Therefore, in China’s Civil Code, which came into effect in January 2021, punitive damages for environmental torts were established, enabling the imposition of additional compensation for severe environmental pollution and ecological damage incidents and thus enhancing the deterrent effect of environmental laws. The construction of punitive damages for environmental torts in China has significant positive implications, but the provisions of the system are not perfect, leading to some confusion in its judicial practice. The United States has a very systematic and mature experience in the construction of punitive damages for environmental torts, which is worthy of reference for China. From a comparative research perspective, China’s punitive damages for environmental torts should particularly focus on issues such as expanding its scope of application, clarifying rules for determining compensation amounts, addressing issues of concurrent liability and optimizing related legislation.

China’s environmental criminal law serves as the strongest legal safeguard for the construction of an ecological civilization, revealing the country’s determination and efforts in environmental protection. Prior to 2011, Article 338 of China’s Criminal Law, which is most closely associated with the punishment of polluters, was rarely applied effectively. However, following the revision of Article 338 to address environmental pollution crime in 2011, more than 10,000 cases were filed in just a few years; thus, this law has played a significant role in the smooth advancement of China’s ecological civilization. An empirical analysis of 1600 instances of environmental pollution crime revealed that Chinese courts continue to give precedence to conventional sentencing factors in the enforcement of this criminal law. Despite the vigorous promotion of the ecological civilization concept in recent years within China, its integration into the judiciary process appears inadequate, and the boundaries of environmental pollution crime remain vaguely delineated. Given these circumstances, there is a pressing need for China to enhance its legislative and judicial frameworks regarding environmental criminal law to ensure robust and enduring support for the nation’s sustainable development.