保护环境债权是生态文明建设落实在法治层面的需要。然而当下破产制度缺乏对于环境债权的优先保护，导致环境债权在清偿顺位中过于滞后从而难以被保护。就现状来看，规则缺位是环境债权清偿顺位规则的主要问题，这将导致环境债权人利益无法被保障、环境责任转嫁社会公众乃至道德风险等消极影响。之所以产生如此问题，主要在于破产制度的构建并未重视环境利益，且存在一定替代措施保护环境利益。然而，破产程序中的环境问题终究要靠破产制度来解决，且当下对于环境债权保护的替代性措施存在局限性。总之，有必要通过明确环境债权的优先性进一步保护破产程序中的环境债权。环境债权的优先性论证，是构建环境债权清偿顺位规则的前提。从法理层面来看，环境法与破产制度的兼容是环境债权优先性论证的前提。环境债权的特殊性是环境债权优先的主要原因。倒逼企业的绿色化治理是环境债权优先的积极影响。当然，环境债权的优先是相对的优先。从实务考察来看，世界银行、美国、加拿大等国际主体在环境债权优先性方面的制度设计与实践经验，以及国内杭州富阳某球拍公司清算案和上海某港实业有限公司破产清算转重整案的具体做法与启示，不仅为构建我国环境债权清偿顺位规则提供了有益的借鉴，也为理论研究提供了实证支持。在明确环境债权具有优先性后，需要进一步构建环境债权的优先顺位规则。环境债权种类多样，可以进一步细分为不同类型。在类型化基础上综合考虑债权保护法益、债权人自身特殊情况以及债权赔偿性质等因素，可以提出具体的清偿顺位安排建议，即：担保债权具有绝对优先性；受理后环境债权及紧急费用纳入破产费用或共益债务；环境侵权人身损害赔偿债权紧跟劳动债权之后清偿；环境税收债权属于税收债权而同顺位清偿；一般生态环境损害赔偿债权按比例优先于普通债权；环境侵权财产损害赔偿债权、环境合同债权纳入普通债权；惩罚性质的债权纳入劣后债权。前述安排既体现了对环境债权的优先保护原则，也有利于兼顾各类主体之间的利益平衡。

Protecting environmental claims is a necessity for the implementation of ecological civilization construction at the legal level. However, the current bankruptcy system lacks preferential protection for environmental claims, leading to their overly delayed position in the order of payment, making them difficult to protect. Looking at the current situation, the absence of rules is the main problem with the order of payment for environmental claims, which can lead to the inability to protect the interests of environmental claimants, the shifting of environmental responsibilities to the public, and moral hazards, among other negative impacts. The main reasons for such problems lie in the construction of the bankruptcy system not valuing environmental interests and the existence of certain alternative measures. However, environmental issues in bankruptcy proceedings must ultimately be resolved by the bankruptcy system, and there are limitations to the current alternative measures for the protection of environmental claims. In summary, it is necessary to further protect environmental claims in bankruptcy proceedings by clarifying the priority of environmental claims. The argument for the priority of environmental claims is a prerequisite for establishing the rules for the order of payment of environmental claims. From a legal perspective, the compatibility of environmental law with the bankruptcy system is a prerequisite for the argument of the priority of environmental claims. The particularity of environmental claims is the main reason for their priority. Forcing enterprises to adopt green governance is the positive impact of the priority of environmental claims. Of course, the priority of environmental claims is a relative priority. From a practical perspective, the institutional design and practical experience of international entities such as the World Bank, the United States, and Canada in terms of the priority of environmental claims, as well as specific practices and insights from cases such as the liquidation of a certain racket company in Fuyang, Hangzhou, and the bankruptcy liquidation and reorganization of a certain port industrial company in Shanghai, not only provide useful references for establishing the rules for the order of payment of environmental claims in China but also provide empirical support for theoretical research. After clarifying that environmental claims have priority, it is necessary to further construct the rules for the priority order of environmental claims. Environmental claims are diverse and can be further subdivided into different types. Based on typology and comprehensive consideration of factors such as the protection of legal interests of claims, special circumstances of the claimants themselves, and the nature of compensation for claims, specific suggestions for the order of payment can be proposed, namely: secured claims have absolute priority; environmental claims and emergency expenses accepted after the filing are included in bankruptcy expenses or common benefits debts; compensation claims for personal injury due to environmental torts are paid after labor claims; environmental tax claims are paid in the same order as tax claims; general compensation claims for ecological and environmental damage are paid proportionally before ordinary claims; compensation claims for property damage due to environmental torts and environmental contract claims are included in ordinary claims; and punitive claims are included in subordinated claims. The aforementioned arrangement not only reflects the principle of preferential protection of environmental claims but also helps to balance the interests between various stakeholders.