二氧化碳減量的無悔政策－－現在不做以後就悔嗎?

The Non-regret Policy of Carbon Dioxide Mitigation: Do It Now or Regret later?

郭柏亨(Po-Heng Kuo)

指導教授 ： 吳珮瑛

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/農業經濟學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.02704

摘要

二氧化碳減量基本上會損害一國經濟，然而若遲遲不採取減量行動，未來所付出的成本可能更大。站在個別國家的立場，在各自不同的環境與考量下，對於何時開始減量、以何種方式達成減量目標，可能有著不同的選擇。如何提供一個更明確的「二氧化碳減量架構」以做為個別國家因應與選擇即是本文的研究目的。
本研究之「二氧化碳減量架構」除《京都議定書》所設定的京都減量目標外，尚參考京都時期以後相關文獻設定了第一個後京都減量目標以及第二個後京都減量目標等三個減量目標。而為了達成減量目標，主要國家常採用的方式有按部就班的逐年減量和累積到最後一次減量等兩種減量期程。將不同減量目標、減量期程及不同年份開始行動等面向相互結合，提供十八種減量情境之模擬，比較「及早行動」與拖延至未來減量之「後期行動」之減量成本差異。其以GDP為代價量之減量成本估計，來自於能明確分析不同國家經濟結構差異的IPAT模型。
本文研究對象涵蓋開發中和已開發等31個主要國家，實證結果顯示，多數國家愈晚行動之「後期行動」的減量總成本大於較早行動之「及早行動」，兩者差距約1.00-5.17倍。此外，在達成相同的減量目標時，到了最後（後期行動）才一年減量之減量總成本亦大於很早開始（及早行動）逐年減量，兩者差距約2.39-5.42倍。因此，二氧化碳愈早開始減量付出的成本愈小，且以逐年減量的期程達成目標是一國較好的選擇。二氧化碳減量政策不論在那一個國家都是無悔政策。

關鍵字

及早行動 ； 後期行動 ； 京都議定書 ； IPAT模型 ； 時間序列 ； 正常排放量

並列摘要

Carbon mitigating action normally will damage economy. A country, however, may pay more in the future if she hesitates to take mitigating action now. The purpose of this study designs a specific “carbon mitigating framework” in which various scenarios of mitigation models will be provided for each individual country while confronting different targets of mitigation and choices of mitigation period.
The “carbon mitigating framework” is based on the targets which are “Kyoto mitigatiion targets” and other targets that are following Kyoto Protocol according to potential international mitigating agreements. The “once mitigation” to achieve the mitigation target and the “annual mitigation” to achieve the mitigation target are two kinds of mitigating period choices used in the study. “Do it now or delay later” phenomenon reflects on the actions designed for “the early mitigating” and “the delay mitigating.” Estimation, computation, and comparison are made by the cost difference in terms of gross domestic product for different aspects of target, mitigation period, and actions.
The empirical results demonstrate that the scenarios with “the delay mitigating action” cost much higher than that “the early mitigating action” by 1.00 to 5.17 times based on the same target and choice of mitigation period. Similarly, “the delay mitigating actions” with “once mitigation” also cost more than that “the early mitigating actions” with “annual mitigation” by 2.39 to 5.42 times based on the same mitigation target. These importment conclusions support a specific cost saving of “no regret policy.” These conclusions is universally true for all the 31 countries, with various levels of economic development, at hand.

並列關鍵字

early mitigating action ； delay mitigating action ； Kyoto Protocol ； IPAT model ； time series ； business as usual

參考文獻

魏國棟，2003。「氣候變遷與因應經濟政策工具：文獻回顧」，『經濟研究』。39卷，1期，27-69。

官雲卿，2008。「排放權核配方式對產業經濟與環境效率之研究」。碩士論文，國立台北大學。

張四立、施欣錦，2001。「能源使用、能源效率與CO2排放之關聯性分析」，『經濟研究』。37卷，2期，85-114。

Andres, R. J., G. Marland, I. Fung, and E. Matthews, 1997. Geographic Patterns of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Hydraulic Cement Production and Gas Flaring on a One Degree by One Degree Grid Cell Basis: 1950 to 1990. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Environmental Sciences Division. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp058/ndp058.pdf) (2010/5/7).

Böhringer, C., 2003. “The Kyoto Procotol: A Rewiew and Perspectives,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 19(3): 451-466.