碳費（稅）政策對綠色技術與創新及GHG減量之驅動――來自台灣與OECD成員國綠色成長指標表現的啟示

The Driving Force of Carbon Fee (Tax) Policy on the Innovation of Green Technology and Reduction of GHG Emissions: The Implication from the Performance of Green Growth Indicators for Taiwan and OECD Member Countries

本文嘗試全面的探討為因應氣候變遷、產業面對碳費（稅）課徵的減碳政策壓力，突破層層市場、轉型與結構障礙，達成非自發性的GHG或CO2排放減量，及對綠色科技與技術創新潛在的驅動來源，再由OECD「綠色成長指標」資料庫中足以反應本文所關切的碳排放及各層面的綠色支出數據資料進行初探。藉此全方位架構、作為未來檢視台灣碳費（稅）費（稅）率之高低，對特定供應鏈的GHG或CO2減量之影響，及對特定產業及之綠色減緩或調適技術R&D支出等各層面之牽動、衝擊及觸發之準備。各國經驗顯示、碳費（稅）政策是政府常用的有效減碳政策工具之一，然要帶引產業進入綠色科技或是綠色技術的新境界，除碳費（稅）政策外、尚須輔以需求拉力或技術推力多元創新政策。至於政策組合的搭配除考量產業特質、產業規模、地區、國家或區域的經濟發展程度，人們對環境管理相關制度與規範的熟識度、文化差異等諸多因素外，在精心設計的碳費（稅）費（稅）率之收入再利用，應考量各層面的利害關係人、在收入中立下補助特定類型技術如再生能源或低碳或綠色技術投資，以發揮碳費（稅）收入再利用的綠色紅利及藍色紅利之雙紅效果。此外，碳費（稅）開始課徵的初始階段，費（稅）率設定應設在較低水準、再逐步提高，以便企業有時間累積綠色創新技術所需的資金。而碳費（稅）課徵於供應鏈原料投入的初始階段，GHG或CO2的減量效果比起課徵於末端產品的效果來得顯著；又當碳費（稅）費（稅）率較高且開發成本較低，則產品的綠色度會隨著費（稅）率的提升而增加。透過貿易連結不同國家供應鏈的結點與成員，比如EU即將施行的CBAM，影響所及除可能改變原來在EU交易體系成員國的採購策略外，同時也會影響EU成員國與非EU成員國之間有更佳的採購組合，使得排放承擔責任相對小的非EU國家與EU建立了新的供應鏈關係，如此將使所有產品價格提升。由於供應鏈中的任一階段均可減少GHG或CO2的排放量，GHG主要來源的製造業與能源部門效率的提升，可採循環經濟的閉環供應鏈機制，循環經濟透過價值鏈合作，減少浪費、增加回收、多採用再利用及恢復原料以重組產品或服務。最後，初步檢視OECD「綠色成長指標」發現，1990年至最新2021年、台灣整體與OECD的38個成員國各國平均一樣，在氣候變遷調適技術開發、調適技術擴散及減緩技術擴散上有相當投注；而台灣、38個OECD成員國及OECD整體成員國平均，此台灣在此三大類專利族數合計排名第5，僅次於美國、日本、南韓及德國，又台灣此三大專利族數合計亦比OECD所有成員國之平均來得高，主要源自氣候變遷調適技術擴散專利族數的貢獻，但氣候調適技術開發專利族數量卻相當有限，台灣即便擠身為已開發國家，不論是沒有能力或無意願開發新的綠色調適技術，台灣的調適技術開發無可避免必須仰賴其他國家。

This study attempts to explore the market, transformation, and structure barriers that an industry confronts under the implementation of carbon fee (tax) policy to achieve the non-spontaneous reduction of GHG/CO2 and comprehend the driving force of green technology innovation. Furthermore, the“green growth indicators”prepared by OECD are used to connect the GHG emissions and different aspects of green expenditures. The comprehensive framework constructed by this study will be used to examine the design of carbon fee in relation to the change of GHG/CO2, the mitigation and adaptation R&D expenditure. It shows from the experiences of other countries, carbon fee(tax) is an effective GHG/CO2 reduction tool. It requires, however, simultaneously implement demand-pull or technology-push innovation policies to lead the industries to green technology paradigm. The policy combinations have to account for the attributes and scale of the industry, the level of the economic development, people’s families with institution and rule in related to the environmental management, and the cultural differences. The carbon fee (tax) revenue recycle under careful design of fee (tax) level should take into account the stakeholders of all kinds and subsidize specific technology such as renewable energy or low-carbon or green technology under revenue neutral. It is suggested that the fee (tax) is set at low level to let business sector have enough time to cumulate required capital for green technology innovation. Moreover, the GHG/CO2 emission reduction is more effective when carbon fee (tax) is implied in the early stage of production, i.e. input level, for a specific supply chain. If the carbon fee (tax) level is high and the development cost is low then the product is greener as fee (tax) level is getting higher. The impact for connection of different nodes and members in a supply chain through international trade could also change firm’s purchasing strategy, such as CBAM in EU. A new supply chain relationship will then be established between member country of EU and non-EU country. This will then raise the product price in EU domain and non-EU territory. As GHG/CO2 emissions can be reduced at any node and member of a supply chain, the efficiency can then be improved from any manufacture and energy sector through closed-loop supply chain of a circular economy. The value chain corporation from a circular economy is to reduce waste, increase recycle, more reuse for products and services. The initial inspection of“green growth indicators”from data bank of OECD, it is found that Taiwan and all 38 member countries of OECD devotes much on climate change adaption technology development, adaption technology diffusion, and mitigation technology diffusion. Taiwan is ranked the fifth to U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Germany among 38 member countries of OECD and the average of OECD for all these three patents. price of price of price of price of price of price of This is mainly contributed from the patents of adaption technology diffusion and very limited from the patents of adaption of technology development. As Taiwan is deemed as one of developed countries, whether it is incapable of or unwilling to develop new green adaption technology it is inevitable that the adaption technologies still highly rely on other countries.