資源回收減量之環境及健康效益評估

Assessment of Environmental and Health Benefits of Material Recycling

林軒嘉(Hsuan-Chia Lin)

指導教授 ： 曾昭衡

國立臺北科技大學/工程學院/環境工程與管理研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6841/NTUT.2014.00586

摘要

溫室氣體(Green House Gases, GHGs)及指標污染物(Criteria Air Pollutants, CAPs)此兩大領域一直為空氣資源管理研究中最重要的課題，我國也有分別針對CAPs與GHGs管理上推行各種政策。但CAPs與GHGs處理技術與政策推行中，如：節能、交通管理、固定污染源、再生能源等政策上，兩者經常會互相影響。因此不宜再將兩者決策分開推行，能同時兼顧到CAPs與GHGs減量之政策，才是現行台灣應該努力的方向。黃振寬(2007)以廢鋼鐵的回收，發現廢棄物之回收率與空氣污染及溫室氣體減量有密切的相關性。計算各種廢棄物回收所帶來的空氣污染減量，將可對企業社會責任，如污染減量及環境改善之績效，以量化後的健康效益，呈現企業更具體的環境績效。
先蒐集資源回收量與空氣污染減量之關係，並建構「空氣資源效益整合模型」，將回收減量成果以健康效益呈現，如延長平均壽命與節省醫療成本。再盤算資源回收，在製程階段所減量之能源、處理與生態成本，減量獲得之效益將與所投資成本相減，得社會成本。社會成本與健康效益加總，稱之為整體社會成本效益。
綜觀各案例在含生命效益上，最高效益均為紙類，不僅因PM10之減量在紙類回收上有最為顯著，且依國外文獻顯示，生命效益通常具有高於醫療效益百倍左右的效益，故在含生命效益上，紙類之效益遠高於其餘回收物。但在不含生命效益之各案例上，鋁類則具有最高值，因在GHG效益及能源節省效益上，鋁類具有遠大於其餘回收物之優勢，國外文獻亦指出，再生鋁使用能源僅需原生製鋁之5%能源。
分析比較Simapro7.3輸出之人類健康衝擊與ARCoB計算之健康效益，紙類效益均遠高於其餘回收物，其次為塑膠或玻璃，最次為鐵及鋁類。兩者在結果上，趨勢相似度頗高。

關鍵字

溫室氣體 ； 指標污染物 ； ARCoB ； 健康效益 ； 資源回收

並列摘要

Green House Gases (GHGs) and Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs), The two major areas of research resources for the air management is the most important issue, and Taiwan also has implemented variety of policy respectively, for the CAPs and GHGs management. But when treatment technologies and policy were implemented for CAPs and GHGs, such as: energy saving, traffic management, stationary sources and renewable energy policies, these often influence each other. So that should not be implemented individually for decisions, it could also take into account the policy reductions of CAPs and GHGs, the direction is the moment of Taiwan should strive.
Huang (2007), found that relevant for air pollution, greenhouse gas reduction and waste recovery rate. Calculate the CAPs and GHGs reductions when various waste were recovered, it will be corporate social responsibility, such as pollution reduction and environmental performance improvement, using health benefits quantified, showing more specifically corporate environmental performance.
Firstly, to collect the relationship between resources recycling and reduction of air pollution, and to construct “Air Resources Co-Benefit Model”, in order to make reduction results of recycling showing as health benefits, such as extending the average life expectancy and saving medical costs. Then calculations the energy, treatment, environmental costs in the manufacturing process, due to the amount of recycling and saving. Reduction benefits minus the cost of investment, called social costs. Social costs and health benefits plus total, called cost-benefit society as a whole. The sum for social costs and health benefits, called society total cost-benefit.
Looking at each case containing life benefits, the best benefit is paper, not only due to the reduction of PM10 in the paper recycling has the most significant, but also according to the foreign literature, that life benefits typically has more than hundred times to medical benefits. Therefore, containing life benefits, the benefit of paper is the highest. But in each case without benefit of life, the aluminum is the highest, because at GHG and energy-saving benefits, aluminum is bester than other recycle material. Literature of foreign also pointed out that the use of renewable energy sources only accounting for 5% for aluminum of the energy of primary aluminum.
Analysis and comparison the Simapro7.3 output of the impact on human health and the health benefits of ARCoB assessment, paper benefits are much higher than the rest of recyclables, followed by plastic or glass, lowest is iron and aluminum. Both on the results, the trend is similarity.

並列關鍵字

GHGs ； CAPs ； ARCoB ； Health Benefits ； Material Recycly

參考文獻

2. 行政院環境保護署，環境保護統計月報，第301期。

6. 黃振寬，以空氣資源管理效益整合模型評估溫室氣體與空氣污染物綜合減量之經濟及社會效益，碩士論文，國立台北科技大學，2007。

44. 蘇慧貞、林乾坤陳培詩，「氣候變遷對公共衛生的衝擊」，科學發展421 期，2008，12~17。

49. 顏嗣璁、林文印、劉遵賢、鄭福田，「台北都會區臭氧與其前驅物VOCs間關聯性分析之研究」，第二十三屆空氣污染防制技術研討會論文集，台中，2006。

69. 行政院衛生署，全民健康保險醫療統計年報，2010。