自1990年代以來，國際間針對氣候變遷議題已有廣泛討論，也針對氣候變遷發布各項報告書，諸如：World Bank Group(2017)、Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,OECD (2019)、World Bank Group(2020)等，各國亦紛紛提出改善溫室氣體排放量的各項政策工具，尤以制定相關環境稅制為重要政策之一。OECD國家的綠色稅制主要以能源稅及碳稅為主，自1990年起，芬蘭開始徵收碳稅後，其餘國家亦陸續跟進。2021年11月，全球共計197個國家將於蘇格蘭舉行第26屆聯合國氣候變化大會（COP 26），該會議關注的重點除了檢討自COP21巴黎協定後各國的減碳行動，更是強調如何實現淨零排放（Net-zero emissions）、碳中和（Carbon neutral）及氣候中性（Climate neutral）等原則，以此作為2030年期望達成的減排目標。
    據此，本文乃選取OECD共計32個選樣國家為研究對象，採用縱橫資料設立方程式模型，探討經濟發展、能源消費、貿易條件、環境稅（費）對於溫室氣體排放的影響。實證結果發現，OECD國家符合環境顧志耐曲線(Environmental Kuznets Curve，EKC)，且僅能源消費對於溫室氣體排放呈正向顯著影響，而貿易條件與環境稅（費）對於溫室氣體排放皆呈負向顯著影響。據此，推論其政策意涵並提出相關建議，包括：OECD有效率的控制溫室氣體排放，經濟的發展是不可小覷的力量；在能源消費中，若汙染能源佔比較低，亦有抑制溫室氣體的排放量的效果；在貿易條件上，若一國主要進口高污染產品，出口低汙染商品，亦有抑制溫室氣體的排放量的效果；而好的環境稅（費）的實施，有利於降低溫室氣體的排放，對於改善環境品質，頗具助益。再者，依據OECD國家所採行政策工具，對於溫室氣體排放（Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions）影響之政策意涵，提供台灣為達成減碳目標制定相關環境政策之參考。

Since the 1990, the issue of climate change has been wildly discussed from the international community, and released repots about climate change, such as World Bank Group(2017)、Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,OECD(2019)、World Bank Group(2020). Many countries have also proposed various policy instruments to improve greenhouse gas emissions, especially, making the related environmental tax system as one of the important policies. The green tax system of OECD countries is mainly based on energy tax and carbon tax. Since 1990, after Finland began to levy carbon tax, other countries have also followed it up. In November 2021, 197 countries around the world will hold the 26th Conferences of the Parties (COPs 26) in Scotland. The purpose of the conference is not only to review the carbon reduction actions of countries since the COPs21 Paris Agreement, but also to emphasize how to achieve the principles of net-zero emissions, carbon neutral, and climate neutral to implement emission reduction targets in 2030.
    Based on those, this article selects 32 OECD sample countries as the research object, and uses Panel Data to establish an equation model to explore the impact of economic development, energy consumption, terms of trade, and environmental taxes on greenhouse gas emissions. The empirical results found that OECD countries conform to the EKC hypothesis, and only energy consumption has a positive and significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, while terms of trade and environmental taxes both have a negative and significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Based on this, we deduced its policy implications and put forward relevant recommendations, including: OECD effectively controls greenhouse gas emissions, economic development is a force that cannot be underestimated; energy consumption, if the proportion of polluting energy is relatively low, it will also curb greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of trade terms, if a country mainly imports high-polluting products and exports low-polluting products, it will also have the effect of suppressing greenhouse gas emissions; and the implementation of good environmental taxes is conducive to Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and quite helpful for improving the quality of the environment. Furthermore, based on the policy tools adopted by OECD countries, the policy implications for the impact of GHG emissions provide a reference for Taiwan to make relevant environmental policies for achieving carbon reduction targets.

中文摘要          	                         i
英文摘要	                                        ii
目錄	                                       iii
表目錄                  	                        iv
圖目錄	                                         v
第壹章 緒論	                                 1
第一節 研究動機與目的	                         1
第二節 研究架構	                                 4
第貳章 國際間之減碳目標與租稅工具	                 5
第一節 國際氣候協定的發展與趨勢	                 5
第二節 OECD國家實施的綠色稅制	                 7
第參章 文獻回顧	                                14
第一節 EKC之假說與文獻	                        14
第二節 能源消費與溫室氣體排放	                22
第三節 貿易條件與溫室氣體排放	                26
第四節 環境稅（費）與溫室氣體排放	                30
第肆章 模型設定與預期結果	                        35
第一節 研究方法與模型設定	                        35
第二節 預期結果	                                40
第伍章 實證結果與分析	                        42
第一節 資料來源	                                42
第二節 敘述性統計	                        44
第三節 實證結果	                                48
第陸章 結論與建議	                        50
參考文獻	                                        53
附錄	                                        61

表目錄                  	                        
表2- 1 碳稅與能源稅彙整表	                        13
表3- 1 EKC之假說與文獻彙整	                21
表3- 2 能源消費與溫室氣體排放文獻彙整	        25
表3- 3 貿易條件與溫室氣體排放文獻彙整	        29
表3- 4 雙紅利效果文獻	                        33
表3- 5 環境稅（費）與溫室氣體排放文獻彙整	        34
表4- 1 Hausman Test檢定結果	                39
表5- 1變數定義與資料來源	                        43
表5- 2 OECD國家1995年至2018年實證結果	        48 
表 1  OECD國家1995年至2018年實證變數之敘述性統計	61

圖目錄
圖1- 1研究架構流程圖	                         4
圖3- 1環境顧志耐曲線	                        14
圖3- 2各種EKC型態	                        16
圖5- 1 OECD國家溫室氣體排放平均數：1995年至2018年	45
圖5- 2 OECD國家經濟成長平均數：1995年至2018年	45
圖5- 3 OECD國家能源消費平均數：1995年至2018年	46
圖5- 4 OECD國家貿易條件平均數：1995年至2018年	46
圖5- 5 OECD國家環境稅（費）平均數：1995年至2018年	47

一、中文文獻
王禮茂，2004，幾種主要碳增匯P減排途徑的對比分析，第四紀研究，第24 卷第2期：191-197。
申威、張阿玲與韓為建，車用替代燃料能源消費和溫室氣體排放對比研究，天然氣工業（加工利用與安全環保），第26卷第11期：148-152。
易嘉慧，2006，污染稅與雙重紅利，國立台灣大學經濟所碩士論文。
林珮筠，2007，能源相關稅制對溫室氣體減量之成效探討-歐洲十五國之實證研究，政治大學財政研究所學位論文。
張紹勳，2016，Panel-data迴歸模型：Stata在廣義時間序列的應用，初版，台北，五南圖書。
黃浩軒，2015，能源消費及二氧化碳排放變動影響因素之跨國比較-以台灣、日本及韓國為例，國立成功大學碩士論文。
黃薇，2017，台灣推行碳價機制之探討，國立臺灣大學管理學院會計研究所碩士論文。
葉如芸，2011，台灣地區空氣污染之長期研究顧志耐曲線的不適用性，東海大學經濟學系研究所碩士論文。
趙愛文與李東，2012，碳排放與能源消費和經濟增長的灰色關聯分析，環境保護科學，第38卷第3期：64-67。
鄭睿合，2008，台灣與日、韓環境顧志耐曲線之應用－二氧化碳排放變動分析，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
蘇漢邦，2016，巴黎協定後之減碳策略與環境稅制發展，財稅研究，第45卷第5期：1-27。
經濟日報，2021，實施碳定價，快邁出第一步，3月31日，A2版。
聯合報，2021，什麼是碳中和?從特斯拉的獲利談起，2月24日，A13版。
經濟日報，2021年，碳鎖台灣，減碳困境，4月20日，A5版。
挪威今日報，2020，挪威再生能源已佔能源總量51%，引用自https://www.trademag.org.tw/page/newsid1/?id=773567&iz=6
經濟部能源局，2010，北歐再生能源發展現況，引用自https://energymagazine.itri.org.tw/Cont.aspx?CatID=16&ContID=1660
經濟日報，2021，推廣電動車 可借鏡挪威，引用自https://money.udn.com/money/story/5612/5237622
關鍵評論，2015，世界最快樂的氣候政策，帶你看丹麥的「綠色」奇蹟，引用自https://www.thenewslens.com/article/18702
能源知識庫，2016，丹麥能源轉型之現況與願景，目標在2030年完全廢除境內燃煤電廠，2035年再生能源發電100%，2050年前完全排除使用化石能源，引用自https://km.twenergy.org.tw/Data/share?82dUn7J29AZKcYo4Zu0v+Q==
今周刊，2019，丹麥通過《氣候法案》，展現「綠色轉型」的決心！10年內減碳7成，還要課徵碳排稅，引用自https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80394/post/202009110013/
中央廣播電臺，2020，實現減碳目標 丹麥將課徵碳排稅，引用自https://www.rti.org.tw/news/view/id/2069081
CSR天下，2018，【低碳生活部落格】排碳要課稅　誰贊成，誰反對？引用自https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/40260

二、英文文獻
Adzawla, W., M. Sawaneh, and A. M. Yusuf. 2019. Greenhouse gasses emission and economic growth nexus of sub-Saharan Africa. Scientific African 3: e00065.
Akbostancı, E., S. Türüt-Aşık, and G. İ. Tunç. 2009. The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Istherean Environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy 37 (3): 861-867.
Al-Mulali, U., B. Saboori, and I. Ozturk. 2015. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76 (January): 123-131.
Apergis, N., and J. E. Payne.2009. CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 37 (8): 3282-3286.
Aslan, A., M. A. Destek, and I. Ozturk. 2017. Bootstrap rolling window estimation approach to analysis of the Environment Kuznets Curve hypothesis: evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25 (3): 2402-2408.
Bachmann, T. M. 2020. Considering environmental costs of greenhouse gas emissions for setting a CO2 tax: A review. Science of the Total Environment 720: 137524.
Bachmann, T. M. 2020. Considering environmental costs of greenhouse gas emissions for setting a CO2 tax: A review. Science of the Total Environment 720: 137524.
Bruvoll, A., and B. M. Larsen. 2004. Greenhouse gas emissions in Norway: Do carbon taxes work? Energy Policy 32 (4): 493-505.
Chebbi, H. E., M. Olarreagaa, and H. Zitouna. 2011. Trade Openness and Co2 Emissions in Tunisia. Middle East Development Journal 3 (1): 29-53.
Cho, C. H., Y. P. Chu, and H. Y. Yang. 2014. An Environment Kuznets Curve for GHG Emissions: A panel cointegration analysis. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 9 (2): 120–129.
Dinda, S. 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics 49 (4): 431-455.
Farhani, S., A. Chaibi, and C. Rault. 2014. CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Economic Modelling 38 (February): 426-434.
Friedl, B., and M. Getzner. 2003. Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecological Economics 45 (1): 133-148.
Gonzalez, R., and E. B. Hosoda. 2016. Environmental impact of aircraft emissions and aviation fuel tax in Japan. Journal of Air Transport Management 57: 234-240.
Grossman, G. M., and A. B. Krueger. 1991. Environmental Impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of economic research.
Hájek, M., J. Zimmermannováb., K. Helmanc, and L. Rozenskýa. 2019. Analysis of carbon tax efficiency in energy industries of selected EU countries. Energy Policy 134: 110955.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2018. IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5˚C. 
Ishikawa, J., and T. Kuroda. 2007. How Effective are Emissions Taxes in an Open Economy? Review of Development Economics 11 (2): 359-368.
Jansen, H., and G. Klaassen. 2000. Economic Impacts of the 1997 EU Energy Tax:Simulations with Three EU-Wide Models. Environmental and Resource Economics 15 (2): 179-197.
Kaika, D., and E. Zervas. 2013b. The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues. Energy Policy 62: 1403-1411.
Kaika, D.and E, Zervas. 2013a.The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory-part a: Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy 62: 1392-1402.
Khan, M. K., M. I. Khan, and M. Rehan. 2020. The relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan. Financial Innovation 6 (1): 1-13.
KYOTO PROTOCOL. https://unfccc.int/
Lin, B., and X. Li. 2011. The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 39 (9): 5137-5146.
Long, X., and E. Y. Naminse, J. Du, and J. Zhuang. 2015. Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52: 680-688.
Mardones, C., and B. Flores. 2017. Evaluation of a CO2 Tax in Chile. Latin American Research Review 52 (3): 334-343.
Morley, B. 2012. Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental taxes. Applied Economics Letters 19 (18): 1817-1820.
Nakata, T., and A. Lamont. 2001. Analysis of the impacts of carbon taxes on energy systems in Japan. Energy Policy 29 (2): 159-166.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development（OECD）.2019. Taxing Energy Use 2019: Using Taxes For Climate Action.
Özokcu, S., and Ö. Özdemir. 2017. Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72: 639-647.
Ozturka, I., and U. Al-Mulalib. 2015. Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curvehypothesis in Cambodia. Ecological Indicators 57: 324-330.
PARIS AGREEMENT. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.
Park, S., and Y. Lee. 2011.Regional model of EKC for airpollution: Evidence from the Republic of Korea. Energy Policy 39 (10): 5840-5849.
Piłatowska, M., A. Włodarczyk., and M. Zawada. 2014. The Environmental Kuznets Curve in Poland Evidence from Threshold Cointegration Analysis. Dynamic Econometric Models 14: 51-70.
Rafiq S., R. Salimb, and I. Nielsen. 2016. Urbanization, openness, emissions, and energy intensity: A study of increasingly urbanized emerging economies. Energy Economics 56: 20-28.
Sahar, S., and A. S. Ruhul. 2014. Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy 66: 547-556.
Shahbaza, M., H. H. Leanb, and M. S. Shabbira. 2012. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger causality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (5): 2947-2953.
Solarin, S. A., U. Al-Mulali, I. Musah, and I. Ozturk. 2017. Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation. Energy 124: 706-719.
Soytas, U., R. Sarib, and B. T. Ewing. 2007. Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecological Economics 62 (3-4): 482-489.
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE. https://unfccc.int/
Wang, S. S., D. Q. Zhou, P. Zhou, and Q. W. Wang. 2011. CO2 emissions , energy consumption and economic growth in China: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy 39 (9): 4870-4875.
World Bank Group. 2017. CARBON TAX GUIDE: A Handbook for Policy Makers.
World Bank Group. 2020. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020. Washington DC, May 2020.
Yang, X., F. Lou., M. Sun., R. Wang, and Y. Wang. 2017. Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Applied Energy 193: 162-173.
Zhang, C., and X. Zhou. 2016. Does foreign direct investment lead to lower CO2 emissions? Evidence from a regional analysis in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58: 943-951.