近年劇烈的氣候變遷引發了各種危機，使得各國紛紛承諾與致力達成淨零碳排與碳中和的目標，而碳交易制度作為具成本有效性的政策工具，也已廣泛的被運用在全球各地。由於目前許多國家或地區的碳交易仍處於獨立運作，尚未整合成如歐盟這類大規模的碳交易市場，故本研究以東亞及南亞國家為例，除討論當這些國家的交易市場透過整合逐步擴大時，對減量成本產生的影響外，並分析當儲存與借用機制被納入交易制度時，對各國減量策略產生的改變。本研究首先估計邊際減量成本函數的參數值，並導出各國的總減量成本函數，接著設定以極小化減量成本函數為目標的經濟模型，模擬包含具儲存與借用機制及11個東亞及南亞國家的碳交易市場。研究結果顯示，包含儲存與借用機制之交易模型將比未包含此兩機制時有更低的減量成本。同時，由各國交易之結果發現中國、馬來西亞與越南為排放權市場主要賣方；印度、印尼、日本與南韓為主要買方，且中國、馬來西亞與越南的排放權供給量將因允許儲存或借用機制而增加，但此結論在總減量要求增加後則不一定成立。此外，隨著較低減量成本的國家陸續加入市場，能使排放權交易的平均減量成本呈明顯下降趨勢。

In recent years, severe climate change has triggered various crises, prompting countries to commit to and strive for net zero emissions and carbon neutrality goals. As a cost-effective policy tool, the carbon emissions trading system has been widely implemented by many countries or regions. However, most of these emissions trading markets operate independently and have not yet been integrated into a large-scale carbon market like the European Union Emissions Trading System. Thus, this research examines the impact on reduction costs as carbon trading markets in East and South Asian countries integrate and expand. Additionally, the study analyzes how the inclusion of banking and borrowing mechanisms in emissions trading system affects the abatement strategies of these countries. We first estimate the total carbon abatement cost function for each country. Then, a cost minimizing model that covers 11 countries is used to simulate a carbon trading market that includes banking and borrowing mechanisms. The results indicate that a trading model incorporating banking and borrowing mechanisms will result in lower reduction costs compared to a model without these mechanisms. Besides, China, Malaysia, and Vietnam are the primary sellers in the trading market, while India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea are the main buyers. The supply of emission permits from these sellers would be higher with banking or borrowing mechanisms, although such conclusion may not hold when overall reduction requirements increase. Furthermore, as countries with lower reduction costs gradually join the market, the average carbon reduction cost shows a significant downward trend.

第一章 緒論--------- 1
第一節 研究動機與目的--------- 1
第二節 研究流程--------- 3
第二章 文獻回顧--------- 4
第一節 具彈性機制的排放權交易分析--------- 4
第二節 排放權交易制度的有效性--------- 5
第三節 整合排放權交易市場--------- 7
第三章 經濟模型--------- 10
第四章 資料來源與應用--------- 16
第五章 實證結果--------- 20
第一節 減量標準改變對各國排放權交易的影響--------- 20
第二節 總減量改變前後比較--------- 22
第三節 排放權市場逐步整合之討論--------- 26
第六章 結論--------- 31
第一節 結論與建議--------- 31
第二節 未來研究方向與建議--------- 31
參考文獻--------- 33
附錄--------- 37
附錄一 不同機制下各國的交易結果--------- 37
附錄二 總減量改變後不同機制下各國的交易結果--------- 41
附錄三 碳交易市場整合之情境模擬結果--------- 45

一、 英文期刊
Arimura, T. H., & Abe, T. (2021). The impact of the Tokyo emissions trading scheme on office buildings: what factor contributed to the emission reduction?. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 23, 517-533.

Bayer, P., & Aklin, M. (2020). The European Union emissions trading system reduced CO2 emissions despite low prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(16), 8804-8812.

Bohm, P., & Larsen, B. (1994). Fairness in a tradeable-permit treaty for carbon emissions reductions in Europe and the former Soviet Union. Environmental and Resource Economics, 4, 219-239.

Chen, Z., Zhang, X., & Chen, F. (2021). Do carbon emission trading schemes stimulate green innovation in enterprises? Evidence from China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, 120744.

Choi, Y., Liu, Y., & Lee, H. (2017). The economy impacts of Korean ETS with an emphasis on sectoral coverage based on a CGE approach. Energy Policy, 109, 835-844.

Cronshaw, M. B., & Kruse, J. B. (1996). Regulated firms in pollution permit markets with banking. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 9, 179-189.

Cui, L. B., Fan, Y., Zhu, L., & Bi, Q. H. (2014). How will the emissions trading scheme save cost for achieving China’s 2020 carbon intensity reduction target?. Applied Energy, 136, 1043-1052.

Feng, H., & Zhao, J. (2006). Alternative intertemporal permit trading regimes with stochastic abatement costs. Resource and Energy Economics, 28(1), 24-40.

Fredj, K., Jean-Marie, A., Martín-Herrán, G., & Tidball, M. (2020). Effects of transaction costs and discount rate on the banking decision of emission permits trading. Advances in Economics and Business, 8(1), 63-71.

Fujimori, S., Masui, T., & Matsuoka, Y. (2015). Gains from emission trading under multiple stabilization targets and technological constraints. Energy Economics, 48, 306-315.

Hu, Y., Ren, S., Wang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020). Can carbon emission trading scheme achieve energy conservation and emission reduction? Evidence from the industrial sector in China. Energy Economics, 85, 104590.

Kling, C., & Rubin, J. (1997). Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution. Journal of Public Economics, 64(1), 101-115.

Kuusela, O. P., & Lintunen, J. (2020). A cap-and-trade commitment policy with allowance banking. Environmental and Resource Economics, 75(3), 421-455.

Leiby, P., & Rubin, J. (2001). Intertemporal permit trading for the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 229-256.

Lin, B., & Jia, Z. (2019). Impacts of carbon price level in carbon emission trading market. Applied Energy, 239, 157-170.

Ma, Z., Cai, S., Ye, W., & Gu, A. (2019). Linking emissions trading schemes: economic valuation of a joint China–Japan–Korea carbon market. Sustainability, 11(19), 5303.

Montgomery, W. D. (1972). Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory, 5(3), 395-418.

Morris, J., Paltsev, S., & Reilly, J. (2012). Marginal abatement costs and marginal welfare costs for greenhouse gas emissions reductions: results from the EPPA model. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 17, 325-336.

Nguyen, D. B., Nong, D., Siriwardana, M., & Pham, H. T. (2023). Insights from ASEAN-wide emissions trading schemes (ETSs): A general equilibrium assessment. Energy Policy, 178, 113583.

Nong, D., Nguyen, T. H., Wang, C., & Van Khuc, Q. (2020). The environmental and economic impact of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 140, 111362.

Nordhaus, W. D. (1991). The cost of slowing climate change: a survey. The Energy Journal, 12(1), 37-66.

Okada, A. (2007). International negotiations on climate change: a noncooperative game analysis of the Kyoto protocol. In Diplomacy Games: Formal Models and International Negotiations (pp. 231-250). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Paltsev, S., Reilly, J. M., Jacoby, H. D., Eckaus, R. S., McFarland, J. R., Sarofim, M. C., ... & Babiker, M. H. (2005). The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4. MIT joint program on the science and policy of global change.

Rubin, J. D. (1996). A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking, and borrowing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(3), 269-286.

Stavins, R. N. (1995). Transaction costs and tradeable permits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(2), 133-148.

Xu, H., Pan, X., Li, J., Feng, S., & Guo, S. (2023). Comparing the impacts of carbon tax and carbon emission trading, which regulation is more effective?. Journal of Environmental Management, 330, 117156.

Yates, A. J., & Cronshaw, M. B. (2001). Pollution permit markets with intertemporal trading and asymmetric information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42(1), 104-118.

Zhang, W., Li, G., & Guo, F. (2022). Does carbon emissions trading promote green technology innovation in China?. Applied Energy, 315, 119012.

Zhang, X., Qi, T. Y., Ou, X. M., & Zhang, X. L. (2017). The role of multi-region integrated emissions trading scheme: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Applied Energy, 185, 1860-1868.

Zhang, Y., Li, S., Luo, T., & Gao, J. (2020). The effect of emission trading policy on carbon emission reduction: Evidence from an integrated study of pilot regions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121843.

二、 學位論文
Chang, R. Y. (2020). Economic Analysis of a Global Permit Trading Market with
Banking and Borrowing Designs for Greenhouse Gas Control. Ph.D dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.

張凱盛 (2021)。《具彈性機制下之中國碳排放權交易市場整合分析》。碩士
論文。國立清華大學經濟研究所。

林宗昱（2009）。《不同國際結盟下碳排放交易制度之成本有效性與交易價格之
分析》。碩士論文。國立臺灣大學生物資源暨農學院農業經濟研究所。

三、 網路資料
行政院經濟部國際貿易署，2024。『中華民國進出口貿易統計』。2024年06
月20日取自https://cuswebo.trade.gov.tw/。

ICAP (2024). Emissions trading worldwide: Status report 2024. Berlin: International
Carbon Action Partnership. Available online: https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/publications/emissions-trading-worldwide-2024-icap-status-report

IPCC (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/