碳税财政支付移转政策对台湾宏观经济影响的模拟研究
|
摘要
由于人为排放的二氧化碳等温室气体,引起了全球暖化,威胁到了人类的生存,拯救人类文明迫切需要一种新经济方式的革命。以低能耗、低污染、低排放为基础的低碳经济方式于焉产生。节能减碳的措施必会增加许多产业的生产成本,低碳政策的影响也随着不同的产业而有所差别。在同样的减碳目标之下,不同的政策手段也可能产生不同的减碳成本、创造不同的减碳商机。虽然农牧及林业部门非温室气体的主要排放者,但上述总体能源与产业政策的调整,仍将间接影响到农牧及林业部门。例如,为了积极发展再生能源等绿色产业,势必加强有机废弃物之再利用、发展生质能源、风力发电等,这些均属土地耗用型之型态,未来农工争地之情形将更明显。此外,大规模推动农牧及林业生产用地用于造林,减少国内农产供给的作法,除了可以拉抬农牧及林业产品之市场价格外,如在国内农工部门间建立适当碳排放权交易制度,将造林之外部效益及农牧及林业部门之真正价值反映出来,农牧及林业产品产销可逐步回归市场机制,引导农牧及林业转型为市场为考量、消费者导向之经营型态,有效提高农牧及林业经营效率及国际竞争力,促进农牧及林业之永续发展。
温室效应所产生的经济社会的外部效应,造成经济效率的损失,进而导致社会福利的损失。外部效应是市场失灵的表现,根据公共产品理论,政府需要运用征税、补贴等财政支出手段对经济运行进行干预。合理的征税与转移支付制度可以使国家的重点建设、基础设施、教育、卫生、环境保护等项目资金得到保障,还可以给予受自然条件影响大、盈利低或风险程度高的产业一定的专项补贴,支持和促进该产业的生产发展。而导入绿色租税制度的收革,其意义在于将环境考量整合于税制体系的设计中。在税收中立的前提下,透过课征环境税(如碳税)取得收入,并降低其它具有扭曲性质的租税,以实现兼收环保和税制的双重红利效果。依据「木桶理论」,将资源投入到农牧及林业部门的发展,以避免「马太效应」所产生的资源配置不均,造成的经济与社会发展的不平衡,抑制整体经济的发展水平和发展速度。碳税收入用以补贴农牧及林业部门,预期对于台湾整体经济环境与温室气体的减量,会达到最佳的效果。
本研究假设为(1)碳税能减少能源消耗,调整产业结构；(2)碳税税收补贴至农牧及林业部门能达到经济增长及CO2减量最大效果；(3)绿色税制双重红利存在。最后,根据台湾环保署「温室气体减量法」的推动进度,准备开征碳税政策方向。在减少对经济活动的干扰,维持税收中立的原则下,参考前人研究环境税制双重红利的结论,设计出各种不同的抵扣或补贴版本,模拟计算出征收碳税收入用以抵销货物税、汽燃费、个人所得税、营业利益所得税等扭曲性租税,加上作为财政转移支付补贴至农牧及林业部门,对台湾宏观经济成长、就业、物价与产业发展,以及C02的减量效果的综合评价,找出最适合台湾温室气体减量的政策。
本论文在前人的研究基础上,以台湾社经资料为基础,模拟台湾课征碳税,并将碳税以财政转移支付政策补贴至农牧及林业部门,及加入绿色税制精神的配套条件,对台湾宏观经济、产业结构,以及C02的减量效果的影响。研究方法系以一般均衡模型(CGE),依据台湾产业结构的特性,利用2006年产业关联表与国民所得帐等编制报告的次级数据,推算碳税政策对于产业最终需求结构变动,对个别产出产生影响,据以衡量所造成宏观经济及产业的影响程度。本研究的创新之处在于：建立了一个基于32部门的台湾碳税及其财政转移支付政策分析的CGE模型,针对课征碳税、财政收入、补贴与转移支付设置出四种情境进行模拟分析,讨论各种本碳税财政转移支付模拟方案对整体经济及产业可能造成的冲击,给予台湾环保署设计课征一个新的税制并做好财政转移支付提出了定量的依据。
研究结果确认了(1)碳税能减少能源消耗,调整产业结构；(2)碳税税收补贴至农牧及林业部门能达到经济增长及CO2减量最大效果；(3)绿色税制双重红利存在等3项研究假设。模拟结果显示：不支持补贴农牧及林业部门的CO2减量效果最差；全部补贴农牧及林业部门C02减量效果最好,两者有两倍以上的差距。综合考虑后,得出碳税抵扣货物税后,余额10%补贴农牧及林业部门,90%支付个人所得税(即方案七)是为最佳的碳税政策。碳税单独支付企业营业利益所得税或燃料税,虽然仍具双重红利,但若与货物税或个人所得税搭配抵扣,反而产生了抑制。
本研究讨论各式碳税及农牧及林业部门财政转移支付政策对整体经济及各部门可能造成的冲击,并找出课征一个新的税制并做好补贴,使经济效果与CO2减量达到最佳的结果。藉由本研究可以发现农牧及林业补贴在10%-20%是为最佳方案,农牧及林业补贴太多(大于20%)或太少(小于10%),皆会造成国内生产总值(GDP)与其它产业产出的负面影响,这是本研究最大的贡献。
Due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, causing global warming, a threat to the survival of mankind, to save human civilization is an urgent need for a new economic revolution. Low-carbon economy based on low energy consumption, low pollution, low emission at the produce stand. Carbon reduction measures will definitely increase the production costs of many industries, the impact of low-carbon policies vary with different industries. Same carbon reduction target under the different policy instruments may produce different carbon reduction costs, create different carbon reduction opportunities. Although agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector non-greenhouse gas emissions, but the overall energy and industrial policy adjustments, will continue to indirectly affect agriculture and animal husbandry, and forestry sectors. For example, in order to actively develop green industries such as renewable energy, it is bound to strengthen the re-use of organic waste, development of biomass energy, wind power, etc., these are land consumption patterns and future agricultural and industrial struggle for land will become even more obvious. In addition, a large scale to promote agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry production land for afforestation, reduce the supply of domestic agricultural production practices, in addition to lift the market price of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry products, particularly, as in the domestic agro-industrial sector to establish appropriate carbon emissions trading system, to reflect the true value of the afforestation of external benefits agriculture and animal husbandry, and forestry sector, the production and marketing of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry products can gradually return to the market mechanism, to guide farmers and forestry transition to market considerations, consumer-oriented operating style, effective agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry operational efficiency and international competitiveness, and to promote the sustainable development of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry.
Greenhouse effect produced by external economic and social effects, resulting in a loss of economic efficiency, which led to the loss of social welfare. External effects the performance of market failure, according to the theory of public goods, the government needs to use taxation, subsidies and other means of financial expenditure to intervene in the economic operation. Reasonable taxation and transfer payment system can focus on building the country's infrastructure, education, health, environmental protection, and other project funds are protected, you can also give affected by natural conditions, industry profitability is low or a high degree of risk certain special subsidies, support and promote the development of the industrial production. Closing leather to import green tax system, its significance lies in the integration of environmental consideration in the design of the tax system. Tax neutrality premise, through the imposition of environmental taxes (such as a carbon tax) income, and lower have distorted the nature of the tax, in order to achieve integrated environmental and double bonus effect of the tax system. Based on the "bucket theory", the resources put into the development of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector, in order to avoid the "Matthew effect" arising from the uneven allocation of resources, caused by the imbalance of economic and social development, to suppress the level of development of the economy as a whole and the pace of development. The carbon tax revenue to subsidize agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector is expected to achieve the best results for Taiwan's overall economic environment and greenhouse gas reduction.
This study assumes (1) a carbon tax to reduce energy consumption, adjusting the industrial structure;(2) carbon tax tax subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry departments to achieve the maximum effect of the economic growth and CO2reduction;(3) green tax double dividend exists. Finally, according to the Taiwan EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act "to promote the progress, it is ready to introduce a carbon tax policy direction. Reduce interference in economic activities, and to maintain the principle of tax neutrality, the the double dividend conclusion of reference of previous studies of environmental taxation, design a variety of deductible or subsidies version simulation used to offset a levy carbon tax into goods tax, gasoline and fuel consumption, personal income tax, business interests, income tax distortionary tax, and as a financial payment migrating subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector, Taiwan's overall economic growth, employment, prices, and industrial development, as well as the reduction of CO2comprehensive evaluation of the effect, to identify the most suitable for the reduction of greenhouse gas policy.
The papers in previous studies based on socioeconomic information to Taiwan-based simulation of Taiwan's carbon tax and the carbon tax is a transfer of financial payment policy of subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sectors, and join the spirit of green tax supporting conditions, the impact of Taiwan's overall economic and industrial structure, as well as CO2reduction effect. The research method is a general equilibrium model (CGE), based on the characteristics of Taiwan's industrial structure, the use of the preparation of the report of the2006industry association table with the national income accounts and other secondary data projected carbon tax policy for the industry, the final changes in the structure of demand, individual products the impact to measure the impact of general economic and industry.The innovation of this study is to:establish a migration policy analysis based on32sector carbon tax and financial payment CGE model, set out four scenarios for the carbon tax, fiscal revenue, subsidies and payment transfersimulation analysis, discussion of a variety of carbon tax fiscal payment the migration simulation scenarios possible impact on the overall economy and the industry, the EPD design levying a new tax system and make the transfer of financial payment quantitative basis.
The results confirm (1) carbon tax to reduce energy consumption, adjusting the industrial structure;(2) carbon tax tax subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry departments to achieve the maximum effect of the economic growth and CO2reduction;(3) green tax double dividend exists wait three hypotheses. The simulation results show that:the worst does not support CO2reduction effect of subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector; CO2reduction effect of all subsidies for agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry departments best, more than twice the gap between the two. The comprehensive consideration obtained the carbon tax deductible goods after tax, the balance of10%of the subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector,90%to pay personal income tax (ie Option VII) for the best carbon tax policy. Carbon tax is a separate income tax or fuel tax, payment of business interests to remain in double dividend, but if the excise tax or personal income tax with deductions, but suppressed.
In this study, discussion kinds of carbon tax and the transfer of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector financial payment policy may impact on the overall economy and departments, and find out that the imposition of a new tax system and do a good job subsidies, the economic effect of the CO2reduction to achieve the best results. Agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry subsidies in the10%to20%for the best programs, agriculture and animal husbandry, and forestry subsidies too much (more than20%) or too little (less than10%) can be found by this study are cause domestic production total value of the negative impact of the (GDP) and other industry output, which is the greatest contribution of this study.
温室效应所产生的经济社会的外部效应,造成经济效率的损失,进而导致社会福利的损失。外部效应是市场失灵的表现,根据公共产品理论,政府需要运用征税、补贴等财政支出手段对经济运行进行干预。合理的征税与转移支付制度可以使国家的重点建设、基础设施、教育、卫生、环境保护等项目资金得到保障,还可以给予受自然条件影响大、盈利低或风险程度高的产业一定的专项补贴,支持和促进该产业的生产发展。而导入绿色租税制度的收革,其意义在于将环境考量整合于税制体系的设计中。在税收中立的前提下,透过课征环境税(如碳税)取得收入,并降低其它具有扭曲性质的租税,以实现兼收环保和税制的双重红利效果。依据「木桶理论」,将资源投入到农牧及林业部门的发展,以避免「马太效应」所产生的资源配置不均,造成的经济与社会发展的不平衡,抑制整体经济的发展水平和发展速度。碳税收入用以补贴农牧及林业部门,预期对于台湾整体经济环境与温室气体的减量,会达到最佳的效果。
本研究假设为(1)碳税能减少能源消耗,调整产业结构；(2)碳税税收补贴至农牧及林业部门能达到经济增长及CO2减量最大效果；(3)绿色税制双重红利存在。最后,根据台湾环保署「温室气体减量法」的推动进度,准备开征碳税政策方向。在减少对经济活动的干扰,维持税收中立的原则下,参考前人研究环境税制双重红利的结论,设计出各种不同的抵扣或补贴版本,模拟计算出征收碳税收入用以抵销货物税、汽燃费、个人所得税、营业利益所得税等扭曲性租税,加上作为财政转移支付补贴至农牧及林业部门,对台湾宏观经济成长、就业、物价与产业发展,以及C02的减量效果的综合评价,找出最适合台湾温室气体减量的政策。
本论文在前人的研究基础上,以台湾社经资料为基础,模拟台湾课征碳税,并将碳税以财政转移支付政策补贴至农牧及林业部门,及加入绿色税制精神的配套条件,对台湾宏观经济、产业结构,以及C02的减量效果的影响。研究方法系以一般均衡模型(CGE),依据台湾产业结构的特性,利用2006年产业关联表与国民所得帐等编制报告的次级数据,推算碳税政策对于产业最终需求结构变动,对个别产出产生影响,据以衡量所造成宏观经济及产业的影响程度。本研究的创新之处在于：建立了一个基于32部门的台湾碳税及其财政转移支付政策分析的CGE模型,针对课征碳税、财政收入、补贴与转移支付设置出四种情境进行模拟分析,讨论各种本碳税财政转移支付模拟方案对整体经济及产业可能造成的冲击,给予台湾环保署设计课征一个新的税制并做好财政转移支付提出了定量的依据。
研究结果确认了(1)碳税能减少能源消耗,调整产业结构；(2)碳税税收补贴至农牧及林业部门能达到经济增长及CO2减量最大效果；(3)绿色税制双重红利存在等3项研究假设。模拟结果显示：不支持补贴农牧及林业部门的CO2减量效果最差；全部补贴农牧及林业部门C02减量效果最好,两者有两倍以上的差距。综合考虑后,得出碳税抵扣货物税后,余额10%补贴农牧及林业部门,90%支付个人所得税(即方案七)是为最佳的碳税政策。碳税单独支付企业营业利益所得税或燃料税,虽然仍具双重红利,但若与货物税或个人所得税搭配抵扣,反而产生了抑制。
本研究讨论各式碳税及农牧及林业部门财政转移支付政策对整体经济及各部门可能造成的冲击,并找出课征一个新的税制并做好补贴,使经济效果与CO2减量达到最佳的结果。藉由本研究可以发现农牧及林业补贴在10%-20%是为最佳方案,农牧及林业补贴太多(大于20%)或太少(小于10%),皆会造成国内生产总值(GDP)与其它产业产出的负面影响,这是本研究最大的贡献。
Due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, causing global warming, a threat to the survival of mankind, to save human civilization is an urgent need for a new economic revolution. Low-carbon economy based on low energy consumption, low pollution, low emission at the produce stand. Carbon reduction measures will definitely increase the production costs of many industries, the impact of low-carbon policies vary with different industries. Same carbon reduction target under the different policy instruments may produce different carbon reduction costs, create different carbon reduction opportunities. Although agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector non-greenhouse gas emissions, but the overall energy and industrial policy adjustments, will continue to indirectly affect agriculture and animal husbandry, and forestry sectors. For example, in order to actively develop green industries such as renewable energy, it is bound to strengthen the re-use of organic waste, development of biomass energy, wind power, etc., these are land consumption patterns and future agricultural and industrial struggle for land will become even more obvious. In addition, a large scale to promote agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry production land for afforestation, reduce the supply of domestic agricultural production practices, in addition to lift the market price of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry products, particularly, as in the domestic agro-industrial sector to establish appropriate carbon emissions trading system, to reflect the true value of the afforestation of external benefits agriculture and animal husbandry, and forestry sector, the production and marketing of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry products can gradually return to the market mechanism, to guide farmers and forestry transition to market considerations, consumer-oriented operating style, effective agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry operational efficiency and international competitiveness, and to promote the sustainable development of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry.
Greenhouse effect produced by external economic and social effects, resulting in a loss of economic efficiency, which led to the loss of social welfare. External effects the performance of market failure, according to the theory of public goods, the government needs to use taxation, subsidies and other means of financial expenditure to intervene in the economic operation. Reasonable taxation and transfer payment system can focus on building the country's infrastructure, education, health, environmental protection, and other project funds are protected, you can also give affected by natural conditions, industry profitability is low or a high degree of risk certain special subsidies, support and promote the development of the industrial production. Closing leather to import green tax system, its significance lies in the integration of environmental consideration in the design of the tax system. Tax neutrality premise, through the imposition of environmental taxes (such as a carbon tax) income, and lower have distorted the nature of the tax, in order to achieve integrated environmental and double bonus effect of the tax system. Based on the "bucket theory", the resources put into the development of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector, in order to avoid the "Matthew effect" arising from the uneven allocation of resources, caused by the imbalance of economic and social development, to suppress the level of development of the economy as a whole and the pace of development. The carbon tax revenue to subsidize agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector is expected to achieve the best results for Taiwan's overall economic environment and greenhouse gas reduction.
This study assumes (1) a carbon tax to reduce energy consumption, adjusting the industrial structure;(2) carbon tax tax subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry departments to achieve the maximum effect of the economic growth and CO2reduction;(3) green tax double dividend exists. Finally, according to the Taiwan EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act "to promote the progress, it is ready to introduce a carbon tax policy direction. Reduce interference in economic activities, and to maintain the principle of tax neutrality, the the double dividend conclusion of reference of previous studies of environmental taxation, design a variety of deductible or subsidies version simulation used to offset a levy carbon tax into goods tax, gasoline and fuel consumption, personal income tax, business interests, income tax distortionary tax, and as a financial payment migrating subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector, Taiwan's overall economic growth, employment, prices, and industrial development, as well as the reduction of CO2comprehensive evaluation of the effect, to identify the most suitable for the reduction of greenhouse gas policy.
The papers in previous studies based on socioeconomic information to Taiwan-based simulation of Taiwan's carbon tax and the carbon tax is a transfer of financial payment policy of subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sectors, and join the spirit of green tax supporting conditions, the impact of Taiwan's overall economic and industrial structure, as well as CO2reduction effect. The research method is a general equilibrium model (CGE), based on the characteristics of Taiwan's industrial structure, the use of the preparation of the report of the2006industry association table with the national income accounts and other secondary data projected carbon tax policy for the industry, the final changes in the structure of demand, individual products the impact to measure the impact of general economic and industry.The innovation of this study is to:establish a migration policy analysis based on32sector carbon tax and financial payment CGE model, set out four scenarios for the carbon tax, fiscal revenue, subsidies and payment transfersimulation analysis, discussion of a variety of carbon tax fiscal payment the migration simulation scenarios possible impact on the overall economy and the industry, the EPD design levying a new tax system and make the transfer of financial payment quantitative basis.
The results confirm (1) carbon tax to reduce energy consumption, adjusting the industrial structure;(2) carbon tax tax subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry departments to achieve the maximum effect of the economic growth and CO2reduction;(3) green tax double dividend exists wait three hypotheses. The simulation results show that:the worst does not support CO2reduction effect of subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector; CO2reduction effect of all subsidies for agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry departments best, more than twice the gap between the two. The comprehensive consideration obtained the carbon tax deductible goods after tax, the balance of10%of the subsidies to agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector,90%to pay personal income tax (ie Option VII) for the best carbon tax policy. Carbon tax is a separate income tax or fuel tax, payment of business interests to remain in double dividend, but if the excise tax or personal income tax with deductions, but suppressed.
In this study, discussion kinds of carbon tax and the transfer of agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry sector financial payment policy may impact on the overall economy and departments, and find out that the imposition of a new tax system and do a good job subsidies, the economic effect of the CO2reduction to achieve the best results. Agriculture and animal husbandry and forestry subsidies in the10%to20%for the best programs, agriculture and animal husbandry, and forestry subsidies too much (more than20%) or too little (less than10%) can be found by this study are cause domestic production total value of the negative impact of the (GDP) and other industry output, which is the greatest contribution of this study.
引文
[1]Burniaux, J.-M., J. P. Martin, G. Nicoletti, and J.O. Martins (1992), "GREEN a Multi-Sector, Multi-Region General Equilibrium Model for Quantifying the Costs of Curbing CO2 Emissions:A Technical Manual," OECD Working Paper, No.116.
[2]Jorgenson, D. W., and P. J. Wilcoxen, (1993) "Reducing US carbon dioxideemissions:An econometric general equilibrium assessment," Resource andEnergy Economics, Vol 15 (1), pp.7-25.12.
[3]Terkla, D., (1984) " Efficiency value of effluent tax revenues," Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management, Vol.11, pp.107-123.
[4]Jorgenson, D.W. and P. J.Wilcoxen (1990), "Environmental Regulation and U.S. Economic Growth," RAND Journal of Economics,21(2),314-340.
[5]Pearce, D. (1991). The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming. The Economic Journal,101,938-948.
[6]Parry, I., (1995) "Pollution Taxes and Revenue Recycling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.29 (3), pp.s64-s77.13. [7]Bovenberg, A. L. and de Mooij, R., (1994a) "Enveronmental Levies andDistortionary Taxation," American Economic Review, Vol.84, pp.1085-1089.10.
[8]Bovenberg, A. L. and de Mooij, R., (1994b) "Environmental Policy in a SmallOpen Economy with Distortionary Taxes," International EnvironmentalEconomics, ed. Ekko C. Ban Ierland. New York:Elsevier.11.
[9]Parry, I. and W. Oates, (1998) " Policy Analysis in a Second-Best World," Discussion Paper 98-48, Washington, D.C.:Resources for the Future.
[10]Parry, I., R. Williams and L. Goulder, (1999) " When Can Carbon AbatementPolicies Increase Welfare? The Fundamental Role of Distorted Factor Markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.37 (1), pp.52-84.15.
[11]Bovenberg, A. L. and L. H. Goulder (1996), "Optimal Environmental Taxation in the Presence of Other Taxes:General Equilibrium Analyses," The American Economic Review,86(4),985-1006.
[12]Parry, I.W. H. (1997), "Environmental Taxes and Quotas in the Presence of Distorting Taxes in Factor Markets," Resource and Energy Economics,19(3),203-220.
[13]Kahn, James. R.,& Farmer, Amy. (1999). The double dividend, second-best worlds,and real-world environmental policy. Ecological Economics,30(3),433-450.
[14]NordhausW. D. and G.W. Yohe (1983), "Future Carbon Dioxide Emission fromFossil Fuels," in Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, US National Research Council,(ed.), Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee,87-153,Washington DC:National Academy Press.
[15]Nordhaus,W. D. (1991), "The Cost of Slowing Climate Change:A Survey," The Energy Journal, 12(1),37-65.
[16]Smith, S. (1995). Green Taxes and Charges:Policy and Practice in Britain and Germany. London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies.
[17]Dwight, R. Lee.,& Walter, S. Misiolek.(1985). Substituting Pollution Taxation for General Taxation. The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,13,338-347.
[18]Bandara, J. S. (1991), "Computable General EquilibriumModels forDevelopment Policy Analysis in LDCs," Journal of Economic Survey,5(1),3-69.
[19]Harrison, G.W., R. Jones, L. J. Kimbell, and R.Wigle (1993), "How Robust is Applied General Equilibrium Analysis?" Journal of Policy Modeling,15(1),99-115.
[20]Dervis, K., J. de Melo, and S. Robinson (1982), General Equilibrium Models for Development Policy, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[1]张静贞,1998年,[温室效应及减量措施对农业之经济影响评估」,气候变迁对农作物生产之影响期刊第161-181页。
[2]萧代基,1999年,[温室气体排放减量的效益与成本分析」,中央研究院经济研究所研究报告。
[3]黄盈甄,2009年,[气候变迁对台湾小农生产之经济分析：李嘉图模型之应用」,台北大学经济学系硕十论文。
[4]温丽琪、李丛祯、吴佳勋、郑富霖、苏怡婷,2009年,[我主要贸易伙伴国与降低温室气体排放有关环境措施对市场进入之影响」,外交部与经济部国际贸易局委托中华经济研究院(台湾WTO中心)2009年度国际经贸事务研究及培训中心计划子计划一：专题研究(5)。
[5]李涵茵,2002年,[从国外绿色租税财政改革经验看台湾环境税制之规划研究」,财团法人台湾综合研究院研究报告。
[6]陈昱安,2006年,[台湾温室气体排放趋势与因应策略分析」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[7]王好莛,2008年,「台湾二氧化碳减量多目标决策之研究」,中兴大学应用经济研究所硕士论文。
[8]杨浩彦,1995年,「台湾经济-环境-能源多目标规划之研究」,中兴大学应用经济研究所博士论文。
[9]杨任征,2001年,「台湾部门二氧化碳排放特性跨国比较」,「能源季刊」,2001年7月。
[10]张翊峰、林素贞、陈贞秀、陈煜斌,2002年,「产业结构调整对台湾地区二氧化碳减量冲击评估」,第八届海峡两岸环境保护学术研讨会,Nov.29-30,2002,新竹,交通大学。
[11]李慧琳、李秉正、徐世勋、黄宗煌,1998年,「提升能源使用效率之二氧化碳排放减量效果及其经济影响评估」,台湾经济学会年会论文集第273-315页。
[12]何金巡、林建甫、周济,2008年,「二氧化碳减量的总体经济计量分析」,台湾大学农业综合馆第九届全国实证经济学研究会论文。
[13]杨浩彦,2002年,「绿色税制改革」,台湾环境与灾害政策学会环境政策与收费制度立法院讨论会。
[14]林佩筠,2008,「能源相关税制对温室气体减量之成效探讨—欧洲15国之实证研究」,政治大学财政研究所硕士论文。
[15]林哲全,2001,「温室气体减量之经济工具-碳税」,能源季刊第1期第31卷页9-23。
[16]梁启源,2009年,「能源税对台湾能源需求及经济之影响」,中央研究院经济研究所台湾经济预测与政策40：1,页45-78。
[17]朱泽民、郭乃锋、杨浩彦,2001,[台湾地区绿税税制设计之研究」,行政院经济建设委员会。
[18]曾琼瑶,1999年,「以碳税做为温室气体减量策略之经济影响分析」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[19]苏汉邦、李秉正、徐世勋等人,1999年,「二氧化碳之总量管制与部门等比例减量政策对台湾社经影响之比较分析」,台湾经济学会年会论文集。
[20]洪群登,2008年,「课征能源税对产业冲击之模拟分析兼论其回馈效果」,台北大学合作经济学系硕士论文。
[21]林容宇、杨浩彦,2002年,「碳税与相关税制调整之整合分析-双重红利(Double Dividend)之验证」,世新大学学生学术研讨会研讨论文。
[22]王京明、温丽琪、黄耀辉、郭乃锋,1999年,「空气污染防制费与相关赋税之整合研究」国科会与环保署委托中华经济研究院《空气污染防制政策之总体经济影响评估》计划。
[23]萧代基、洪志铭、罗时芳,2010年,「碳税与碳交易之比较与搭配」,中华经济研究院研究报告。
[24]简锦江,2000年,[OECD绿色税制改革经验对台湾之启示」,财税研究期刊第4期第32卷页37-54。
[25]陈伯凯,2006年,「台湾能源消费预测与课征碳税之研究」,中兴大学应用经济研究所硕士论文。
[26]蔡宛霖,2009年,「考虑碳税政策之最适能源投入要素组合」,成功大学工业与信息管理学系硕士论文。
[27]杨浩彦,2009年,「能源税的经济效果—考虑参数不确定的可计算一般均衡分析」,中央研究院经济研究所台湾经济预测与政策40：1,页79-125。
[28]庄铭池,1995年,「温室气体减量措施之研拟与评估研究---多目标决策模型之建立与应用」,中兴大学资管所硕士论文。
[29]台湾能源局,2011年,「台湾燃料燃烧CO2排放统计与分析」。
[30]王涂发,1998年,「台湾因应二氧化碳排放减量应采之对策」,民间能源会议：因应温室效应的民间观点。
[31]林裕文,1994年,「二氧化碳排放限制下台湾产业与能源使用因应策略多目标规划应用」,成功大学信息管理研究所硕士论文。
[32]林素贞、张翊峰,1995年,「以投入产出分析产业能源耗用与污染排放量之关联性-以1991年台湾地区为例」,能源季刊第25卷第4期第52-74页。
[33]陈昱安,2006年,「台湾温室气体排放趋势与因应策略分析」,台湾大学农业经济系硕士论文。
[34]许志义、柏云昌、杨浩彦、郭乃锋、蔡光第,1995年,「课征碳税对台湾经济影响之分析」,1995年能源经济学会研讨会论文集。
[35]张静贞,1997年,「开征碳税对台湾农业部门之影响」,因应温室效应之经济工具及其经济影响研讨会论文集第121-140页。
[36]陈佳琪,1996年,[以造林作为温室气体减量工具之经济分析」,台湾大学农业经济学系硕士论文。
[37]沈芝贝,2007年,「造林奖励与碳吸存补贴对台湾造林与社会福利的影响」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[38]许亦伶,1993年,「从公共经济学的角度探讨课征碳税对林业部门的影响」,台湾大学森林学研究所硕士论文。
[39]萧代基、温丽琪、申永顺等11人,2009年,「碳排放交易机制建置之研究」,经济建设委员会委托中华经济研究院计划执行报告(案号：97122603)。
[40]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区人力资源调查年报」
[41]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区多因素生产力趋势分析报告」
[42]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区国民所得」。
[43]台湾主计处,2011年,「2006年台湾地区产业关联表(54部门)」。
[44]台湾主计处,2011年,[2006年台湾地区产业关联表(166部门)」。
[45]台湾主计处,2011年, [2006年台湾地区产业关俩报告」。
[46]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区能源平衡表-OECD能源统计」
[47]苏汉邦,1999年,「课征碳税对『总体经济』与『所得分配』影响之一般均衡分析」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[48]林素贞、杨维修,1997年,「温室气体减量之课税机制探讨」,能源季刊第二十七卷第四期pp.19-31。
[49]黄宗煌、徐世勋、李秉正、林师模、刘锦龙,2000年,「温室气体减量策略之经济影响评估：TAIGEM(?)-D模型之应用」,行政院环境保护署气候变化纲要公约信息速报第二十七期。
[50]陈小玲、萧代基、张四立,2003年,「台湾石油税制绿色改革」,经济部能源委员会委托研究报告。
[51]曾琼瑶、李坚明,2010年,[哥本哈根气候协议与台湾参与国际排放交易之经济影响评估」,台湾大学农业综合馆全国实证经济学研究会论文。
[52]雷琦佩,2010年,[温室气体减量政策制定与碳税实施效益-以高雄市为例」,高雄应用科技大学硕士论文。
[53]曾禹杰,2008年,[温室气体减量策略对台湾产业部门冲击之评估—多目标决策方法之应用」,台湾大学经济研究所硕士论文。
[54]梁启源,2007年,「能源税及其配套对台湾经济之影响」,石油市场双周报2007年10月。
[55]郑森山,2007年,「课征能源税对台湾经济影响的产业关联分析」,世新大学经济研究所硕士论文。
[56]陈杰琛,2002年,「清洁发展机制、技术扩散效果与经济成长」,台北大学经济研究所硕士论文。
[57]张子见,2000年,「灰色产业关联模型应用于二氧化碳减量策略之冲击评估」,成功大学环境工程研究所博士论文。
[58]林师模,1998年,[开征碳税与产业结构调整策略」,温室气体减量之经济影响评估研讨会论文集。
[59]李秉正、徐世勋、黄宗煌,1998年,[开征碳税之经济影响跨国比较：GTAP多国模型之应用」,温室气体减量之经济影响评估研讨会论文集。
[60]林师模,1997年,[课征燃料税对所得阶层及城乡福利影响之一般均衡分析」,因应温室效应之经济工具及其经济影响论文集第111-138页。
[61]李秉正,1997年,[温室效应防制政策对台湾的经济影响评估」,因应温室效应之经济工具及其经济影响研讨会论文集。
[62]萧代基,1996年,「温室气体排放减量的效益与成本分析总计划」,国科会专题研究计划成果报告。
[63]林秀英、张耀仁、王淑姿,1994年,[抑制二氧化碳排放课征碳税之可行性研究」,台湾经济研究院研究报告。
[64]周曙东、陈丹梅、吴强、缪仕国,2005年,「江苏省农业可持续发展的综合评价」,南京农业大学学报2005,28(2)：116-121。
[65]周曙东,2008年,「江苏农业可持续发展的潜力、制约因素与推进机制」,南京农业大学国际性学术研讨会会议资源环境与可持续发展分组报告论文。
[66]周曙东、张伟新、朱德明,2005年,「江苏省可持续发展战略研究」,中国财经出版社论文。
[67]宣亚南、周曙东,2007年,「循环经济与江苏产业结构调整」,长江流域资源与环境期刊论文。
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm
[2]台湾行政院主计处信息网(http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/)。
[3]台湾经济部能源局信息网(http://www.moeaec.gov.tw/)。
[4]台湾财政部信息网(http://www.mof.gov.tw/)
[5]台湾行政院环保署信息网(http://www.epa.gov.tw/)
[2]Jorgenson, D. W., and P. J. Wilcoxen, (1993) "Reducing US carbon dioxideemissions:An econometric general equilibrium assessment," Resource andEnergy Economics, Vol 15 (1), pp.7-25.12.
[3]Terkla, D., (1984) " Efficiency value of effluent tax revenues," Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management, Vol.11, pp.107-123.
[4]Jorgenson, D.W. and P. J.Wilcoxen (1990), "Environmental Regulation and U.S. Economic Growth," RAND Journal of Economics,21(2),314-340.
[5]Pearce, D. (1991). The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming. The Economic Journal,101,938-948.
[6]Parry, I., (1995) "Pollution Taxes and Revenue Recycling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.29 (3), pp.s64-s77.13. [7]Bovenberg, A. L. and de Mooij, R., (1994a) "Enveronmental Levies andDistortionary Taxation," American Economic Review, Vol.84, pp.1085-1089.10.
[8]Bovenberg, A. L. and de Mooij, R., (1994b) "Environmental Policy in a SmallOpen Economy with Distortionary Taxes," International EnvironmentalEconomics, ed. Ekko C. Ban Ierland. New York:Elsevier.11.
[9]Parry, I. and W. Oates, (1998) " Policy Analysis in a Second-Best World," Discussion Paper 98-48, Washington, D.C.:Resources for the Future.
[10]Parry, I., R. Williams and L. Goulder, (1999) " When Can Carbon AbatementPolicies Increase Welfare? The Fundamental Role of Distorted Factor Markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.37 (1), pp.52-84.15.
[11]Bovenberg, A. L. and L. H. Goulder (1996), "Optimal Environmental Taxation in the Presence of Other Taxes:General Equilibrium Analyses," The American Economic Review,86(4),985-1006.
[12]Parry, I.W. H. (1997), "Environmental Taxes and Quotas in the Presence of Distorting Taxes in Factor Markets," Resource and Energy Economics,19(3),203-220.
[13]Kahn, James. R.,& Farmer, Amy. (1999). The double dividend, second-best worlds,and real-world environmental policy. Ecological Economics,30(3),433-450.
[14]NordhausW. D. and G.W. Yohe (1983), "Future Carbon Dioxide Emission fromFossil Fuels," in Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, US National Research Council,(ed.), Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee,87-153,Washington DC:National Academy Press.
[15]Nordhaus,W. D. (1991), "The Cost of Slowing Climate Change:A Survey," The Energy Journal, 12(1),37-65.
[16]Smith, S. (1995). Green Taxes and Charges:Policy and Practice in Britain and Germany. London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies.
[17]Dwight, R. Lee.,& Walter, S. Misiolek.(1985). Substituting Pollution Taxation for General Taxation. The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,13,338-347.
[18]Bandara, J. S. (1991), "Computable General EquilibriumModels forDevelopment Policy Analysis in LDCs," Journal of Economic Survey,5(1),3-69.
[19]Harrison, G.W., R. Jones, L. J. Kimbell, and R.Wigle (1993), "How Robust is Applied General Equilibrium Analysis?" Journal of Policy Modeling,15(1),99-115.
[20]Dervis, K., J. de Melo, and S. Robinson (1982), General Equilibrium Models for Development Policy, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[1]张静贞,1998年,[温室效应及减量措施对农业之经济影响评估」,气候变迁对农作物生产之影响期刊第161-181页。
[2]萧代基,1999年,[温室气体排放减量的效益与成本分析」,中央研究院经济研究所研究报告。
[3]黄盈甄,2009年,[气候变迁对台湾小农生产之经济分析：李嘉图模型之应用」,台北大学经济学系硕十论文。
[4]温丽琪、李丛祯、吴佳勋、郑富霖、苏怡婷,2009年,[我主要贸易伙伴国与降低温室气体排放有关环境措施对市场进入之影响」,外交部与经济部国际贸易局委托中华经济研究院(台湾WTO中心)2009年度国际经贸事务研究及培训中心计划子计划一：专题研究(5)。
[5]李涵茵,2002年,[从国外绿色租税财政改革经验看台湾环境税制之规划研究」,财团法人台湾综合研究院研究报告。
[6]陈昱安,2006年,[台湾温室气体排放趋势与因应策略分析」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[7]王好莛,2008年,「台湾二氧化碳减量多目标决策之研究」,中兴大学应用经济研究所硕士论文。
[8]杨浩彦,1995年,「台湾经济-环境-能源多目标规划之研究」,中兴大学应用经济研究所博士论文。
[9]杨任征,2001年,「台湾部门二氧化碳排放特性跨国比较」,「能源季刊」,2001年7月。
[10]张翊峰、林素贞、陈贞秀、陈煜斌,2002年,「产业结构调整对台湾地区二氧化碳减量冲击评估」,第八届海峡两岸环境保护学术研讨会,Nov.29-30,2002,新竹,交通大学。
[11]李慧琳、李秉正、徐世勋、黄宗煌,1998年,「提升能源使用效率之二氧化碳排放减量效果及其经济影响评估」,台湾经济学会年会论文集第273-315页。
[12]何金巡、林建甫、周济,2008年,「二氧化碳减量的总体经济计量分析」,台湾大学农业综合馆第九届全国实证经济学研究会论文。
[13]杨浩彦,2002年,「绿色税制改革」,台湾环境与灾害政策学会环境政策与收费制度立法院讨论会。
[14]林佩筠,2008,「能源相关税制对温室气体减量之成效探讨—欧洲15国之实证研究」,政治大学财政研究所硕士论文。
[15]林哲全,2001,「温室气体减量之经济工具-碳税」,能源季刊第1期第31卷页9-23。
[16]梁启源,2009年,「能源税对台湾能源需求及经济之影响」,中央研究院经济研究所台湾经济预测与政策40：1,页45-78。
[17]朱泽民、郭乃锋、杨浩彦,2001,[台湾地区绿税税制设计之研究」,行政院经济建设委员会。
[18]曾琼瑶,1999年,「以碳税做为温室气体减量策略之经济影响分析」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[19]苏汉邦、李秉正、徐世勋等人,1999年,「二氧化碳之总量管制与部门等比例减量政策对台湾社经影响之比较分析」,台湾经济学会年会论文集。
[20]洪群登,2008年,「课征能源税对产业冲击之模拟分析兼论其回馈效果」,台北大学合作经济学系硕士论文。
[21]林容宇、杨浩彦,2002年,「碳税与相关税制调整之整合分析-双重红利(Double Dividend)之验证」,世新大学学生学术研讨会研讨论文。
[22]王京明、温丽琪、黄耀辉、郭乃锋,1999年,「空气污染防制费与相关赋税之整合研究」国科会与环保署委托中华经济研究院《空气污染防制政策之总体经济影响评估》计划。
[23]萧代基、洪志铭、罗时芳,2010年,「碳税与碳交易之比较与搭配」,中华经济研究院研究报告。
[24]简锦江,2000年,[OECD绿色税制改革经验对台湾之启示」,财税研究期刊第4期第32卷页37-54。
[25]陈伯凯,2006年,「台湾能源消费预测与课征碳税之研究」,中兴大学应用经济研究所硕士论文。
[26]蔡宛霖,2009年,「考虑碳税政策之最适能源投入要素组合」,成功大学工业与信息管理学系硕士论文。
[27]杨浩彦,2009年,「能源税的经济效果—考虑参数不确定的可计算一般均衡分析」,中央研究院经济研究所台湾经济预测与政策40：1,页79-125。
[28]庄铭池,1995年,「温室气体减量措施之研拟与评估研究---多目标决策模型之建立与应用」,中兴大学资管所硕士论文。
[29]台湾能源局,2011年,「台湾燃料燃烧CO2排放统计与分析」。
[30]王涂发,1998年,「台湾因应二氧化碳排放减量应采之对策」,民间能源会议：因应温室效应的民间观点。
[31]林裕文,1994年,「二氧化碳排放限制下台湾产业与能源使用因应策略多目标规划应用」,成功大学信息管理研究所硕士论文。
[32]林素贞、张翊峰,1995年,「以投入产出分析产业能源耗用与污染排放量之关联性-以1991年台湾地区为例」,能源季刊第25卷第4期第52-74页。
[33]陈昱安,2006年,「台湾温室气体排放趋势与因应策略分析」,台湾大学农业经济系硕士论文。
[34]许志义、柏云昌、杨浩彦、郭乃锋、蔡光第,1995年,「课征碳税对台湾经济影响之分析」,1995年能源经济学会研讨会论文集。
[35]张静贞,1997年,「开征碳税对台湾农业部门之影响」,因应温室效应之经济工具及其经济影响研讨会论文集第121-140页。
[36]陈佳琪,1996年,[以造林作为温室气体减量工具之经济分析」,台湾大学农业经济学系硕士论文。
[37]沈芝贝,2007年,「造林奖励与碳吸存补贴对台湾造林与社会福利的影响」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[38]许亦伶,1993年,「从公共经济学的角度探讨课征碳税对林业部门的影响」,台湾大学森林学研究所硕士论文。
[39]萧代基、温丽琪、申永顺等11人,2009年,「碳排放交易机制建置之研究」,经济建设委员会委托中华经济研究院计划执行报告(案号：97122603)。
[40]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区人力资源调查年报」
[41]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区多因素生产力趋势分析报告」
[42]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区国民所得」。
[43]台湾主计处,2011年,「2006年台湾地区产业关联表(54部门)」。
[44]台湾主计处,2011年,[2006年台湾地区产业关联表(166部门)」。
[45]台湾主计处,2011年, [2006年台湾地区产业关俩报告」。
[46]台湾主计处,2011年,「台湾地区能源平衡表-OECD能源统计」
[47]苏汉邦,1999年,「课征碳税对『总体经济』与『所得分配』影响之一般均衡分析」,台湾大学农业经济研究所硕士论文。
[48]林素贞、杨维修,1997年,「温室气体减量之课税机制探讨」,能源季刊第二十七卷第四期pp.19-31。
[49]黄宗煌、徐世勋、李秉正、林师模、刘锦龙,2000年,「温室气体减量策略之经济影响评估：TAIGEM(?)-D模型之应用」,行政院环境保护署气候变化纲要公约信息速报第二十七期。
[50]陈小玲、萧代基、张四立,2003年,「台湾石油税制绿色改革」,经济部能源委员会委托研究报告。
[51]曾琼瑶、李坚明,2010年,[哥本哈根气候协议与台湾参与国际排放交易之经济影响评估」,台湾大学农业综合馆全国实证经济学研究会论文。
[52]雷琦佩,2010年,[温室气体减量政策制定与碳税实施效益-以高雄市为例」,高雄应用科技大学硕士论文。
[53]曾禹杰,2008年,[温室气体减量策略对台湾产业部门冲击之评估—多目标决策方法之应用」,台湾大学经济研究所硕士论文。
[54]梁启源,2007年,「能源税及其配套对台湾经济之影响」,石油市场双周报2007年10月。
[55]郑森山,2007年,「课征能源税对台湾经济影响的产业关联分析」,世新大学经济研究所硕士论文。
[56]陈杰琛,2002年,「清洁发展机制、技术扩散效果与经济成长」,台北大学经济研究所硕士论文。
[57]张子见,2000年,「灰色产业关联模型应用于二氧化碳减量策略之冲击评估」,成功大学环境工程研究所博士论文。
[58]林师模,1998年,[开征碳税与产业结构调整策略」,温室气体减量之经济影响评估研讨会论文集。
[59]李秉正、徐世勋、黄宗煌,1998年,[开征碳税之经济影响跨国比较：GTAP多国模型之应用」,温室气体减量之经济影响评估研讨会论文集。
[60]林师模,1997年,[课征燃料税对所得阶层及城乡福利影响之一般均衡分析」,因应温室效应之经济工具及其经济影响论文集第111-138页。
[61]李秉正,1997年,[温室效应防制政策对台湾的经济影响评估」,因应温室效应之经济工具及其经济影响研讨会论文集。
[62]萧代基,1996年,「温室气体排放减量的效益与成本分析总计划」,国科会专题研究计划成果报告。
[63]林秀英、张耀仁、王淑姿,1994年,[抑制二氧化碳排放课征碳税之可行性研究」,台湾经济研究院研究报告。
[64]周曙东、陈丹梅、吴强、缪仕国,2005年,「江苏省农业可持续发展的综合评价」,南京农业大学学报2005,28(2)：116-121。
[65]周曙东,2008年,「江苏农业可持续发展的潜力、制约因素与推进机制」,南京农业大学国际性学术研讨会会议资源环境与可持续发展分组报告论文。
[66]周曙东、张伟新、朱德明,2005年,「江苏省可持续发展战略研究」,中国财经出版社论文。
[67]宣亚南、周曙东,2007年,「循环经济与江苏产业结构调整」,长江流域资源与环境期刊论文。
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm
[2]台湾行政院主计处信息网(http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/)。
[3]台湾经济部能源局信息网(http://www.moeaec.gov.tw/)。
[4]台湾财政部信息网(http://www.mof.gov.tw/)
[5]台湾行政院环保署信息网(http://www.epa.gov.tw/)