|Abstract: ||觀察自1990年起至2012年期間，台灣溫室氣體排放量已大幅成長98.1%，然而，歷年溫室氣排放量又以二氧化碳為最大宗。鑒於歐盟國家自1990年代起，已陸續制定若干環境法規，並推動減排政策，台灣於2005年才正式納入溫室氣體減量思維，並將2008年訂為減碳元年，但相關環境法規迄未通過立法。為評估經濟成長對溫室氣體排放的影響，本文乃建立GHG (Greenhouse gas, GHG)排放量與總產出的聯立模型，再加入其他會影響GHG排放量的解釋變數，以估計台灣2001至2012年GHG與產出間的關係。實證結果顯示，GHG排放量對總產出之關係並不顯著；固定資本和勞動力均符合生產函數理論，為經濟成長的主要因素；至於，環境品質與經濟發展間並不存在倒U型之環境顧志耐曲線，而是呈現U字型曲線，意味著環境品質隨著產出的提升呈現惡化現象；再者，能源消費量與貿易自由化均造成污染排放日益嚴重，加重環境承載能力；另外，課徵環境稅費可實現外部（污染）成本內部化的效果，符合雙紅利的第一重紅利假說。本研究則是根據實證結果研擬相關政策建議，以期實現經濟成長與環境改善之「雙紅利效果」。|
Observation period since 1990 till 2012, Taiwan''s greenhouse gases emission has been substantial growth of 98.1%, however, among all of the greenhouse gases, CO2 has the most emission over the years. In view of EU countries have gradually developed a number of environmental regulations and promote reduction policies since 1990. Taiwan was formally incorporated greenhouse gases reduction thinking in 2005, and set 2008 was the first year for carbon reduction, but relevant environmental legislation have not been enacted. In order to assess the impact of economic growth on greenhouse gases, this paper establishes simultaneous model between GHG (Greenhouse gas, GHG) emission and the total output, then add other explanatory variables which will affect GHG emission, to estimate the relationship between GHG and output from 2001 to 2012 in Taiwan. The empirical results show, GHG emission does not significantly affect total output; Fixed capital and labor are both the main factor for economic growth and accord with production function theory; As for quality of the environment and economic development does not exist inverted U-shaped of Environmental Kuznets Curve, but showing a U-shaped curve, this means that the quality of the environment with the enhancement of output was deteriorated; Furthermore, the energy consumption and trade liberalization are causing pollution worsening which aggravating environmental carrying capacity; In addition, the levy environmental taxes can achieve the effect of the internalization of external(pollution) costs, according the first double dividend hypothesis. This study formulate policy recommendations based on the empirical results, and view to achieve the double dividend effect of economic growth and environmental improvement.