氣候變遷已然成為國際間急需面對的課題。為了減輕溫室氣體排放量所採取之環境政策工具，不僅需要內國及國際環境法制加以處理，也需要輔以經濟誘因來推動溫室氣體減量工作。開發中國家因經濟成長使排放量急劇增加，包括亞洲主要國家的中國大陸、南韓、日本與台灣等，也開始積極推動碳交易機制。 碳交易機制連結是一種將各國的碳交易機制有組織性地連結而成全球碳交易市場的方式，在目前全球氣候變遷制度談判僵局之下，亞洲國家積極建立推動各國碳交易機制及其法規，亞洲碳交易市場連結發展之可能性成為氣候變遷焦點之一。本文採取文獻回顧法及歸納法，透過檢視分析學者文獻、歐盟、加州與魁北克碳交易機制的連結法規制度，探討連結碳交易機制所需要的法規要素，藉由分析成功的連結經驗，以探討亞洲國家複製歐盟、加州與魁北克碳交易機制連結模式之可行性。 以亞洲國家現今關於碳交易制度的立法規劃來看，目前只有韓國法規具有明確立法連結之相關規定，因此，進而比對韓國連結法規是否已具備足以對外連結之規範及要素，檢視韓國在運行了韓國碳交易機制之後，是否會有對外連結的可能性。台灣雖然已經於2015年通過溫室氣體減量及管理法，並於同年7月生效之，在該法規中有連結之基本概念，但是對於其他如減量階段時程、抵銷詳細規範等，在法規中或其他相關法規中未有具體擘劃。 在面臨亞洲地區一個大型的區域性碳交易市場即將崛起之際，亞洲地區的國家若要發展下一步的連結碳交易機制，在法規制度內須對於對外連結有明確的法律授權，其碳交易機制才有望可發展後續的對外連結。 / In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, every country should not only construct the international environmental law and country law, but also use economic strategies as assistant. The emission increases sharply because of rapid economic growth in developing countries in Asia. Therefore, major Asian countries including China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, promote the emission trading system. The emissions trading system is a key tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Linking the emission trading systems is an organized way to create a global carbon market. When the global climate change negotiation is deadlocked, a growing number of countries in Asia are integrating cap-and-trade systems into their national climate policies, so that the probability of developing the carbon market in Asia becomes the main issue. This study summarizes and refers to the scholars’ reference materials, the law and regulation of the EU, California and Quebec emission trading systems. The aim of the study is to: (1) generalize the legal and institutional requirements for linking emissions trading systems by analyzing the experiences from the EU, California and Quebec; (2) discuss whether emission trading systems in Asia could be linked. The study concludes that only South Korea has the relevant legislation that authorizes linking with other emissions trading systems in Asia. It is more likely that South Korea emission trading system will establish link to other countries. By viewing and comparing the legal requirements for linking emissions trading system in this study, however, it seems like that there are still some legal challenges for South Korea to be fully prepared for linking with other emissions trading systems in the short term.

京都議定書自1997年以來已制定多年，目前已有許多國家與地區開始實行京都三機制，但汙染排放權交易之會計處理尚未有一致性之規範，汙染排放權會計性質也尚未界定。因此，本研究擬從IFRSs現行會計理論基本架構來探討京都三機制：清潔發展機制、聯合履行與排放交易之會計處理。本研究認為如果持有汙染排放權目的為僅有履行減排義務之企業，建議採用成本法處理，排放負債與政府捐贈部分採用IFRIC 3之市價處理。同時為履行減排義務與出售目的企業，履行減排義務部分之汙染排放權仍依照成本法處理，超出限額部分之汙染排放權採重估價法處理。沒有提交義務之企業採用投資方式持有汙染排放權，依據汙染排放權金融資產特性，使用IAS 39或IFRS 9處理。至於CDM與JI皆屬於計畫型，因此在取得CERs與ERUs之相關之成本支出，皆暫時列發展支出，確認後再列為無形資產，移轉之價差則為企業收入。 / Since 1997, Kyoto Protocol has been effective for many years. There are many countries and regions implemented Kyoto Mechanisms to fulfill carbon mitigation duties. However, until now the standardized accounting method of Kyoto Mechanisms and the accounting nature of emission rights have not yet been defined. Therefore, this research tries to base on the concept and theory of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) to discuss the accounting measurement and determination for three Kyoto Mechanisms: Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation and Emission Trade. We suggests the entities whose purpose is to reduce the emission obligations should use the cost method to measure the emission rights, and the emission liabilities and government grants should be measured in fair value under IFRIC No. 3. For those entities hold emission rights for the purpose of emissions reduction and trading at the same time, and we suggest the entities apply the cost method for emissions reduction purpose and fair value to evaluate method for trading purpose. For those entities who don’t have emission reduction obligation but hold emission rights for trading and investing purposes, according to the characteristics of financial assets for emission rights should apply International Accounting Standards 39 or IFRS No. 9. Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation are project-based transaction, so the related costs of certified emission reductions and emission reduction units are temporarily recognized as development expenditure then transfer to intangible assets when the rights of the units are confirmed. The difference between the cost and transfer price shall be recognized as business revenue.

隨著全球溫室氣體排放量的增長，氣候變遷帶來的衝擊益加嚴重，京都議定書的三種彈性減量機制為人類對抗氣候變遷帶來了新的契機，「碳交易」及「碳市場」於焉而生。為與國際的潮流接軌，立法院於2015年6月15日三讀通過了《溫室氣體減量及管理法》，嗣經總統於同年7月1日公布施行，我國將可藉由「總量管制與排放交易」(Cap and Trade)的實施，建立一個強制性的碳市場。本論文以市場規模最大的歐盟及中、美兩大排碳國為例，探討它們碳市場發展的經驗，並將重點聚焦在其歷史背景、制度面的設計、碳交易的情形及執行減量的成效上，希望從中找出我國碳交易可以學習與借鑑的地方。 歐、美及中國的碳市場各在不同的背景之下產生，歐盟及中國以強制性市場為主，美國則以自願性市場為主。本論文發現，歐盟排放交易體系(EU ETS)及中國的7個碳試點，其發展有賴明確的溫室氣體減量目標與碳交易的強制規定作為基礎，此正是美國碳市場所缺乏的。芝加哥氣候交易所(CCX)本質上其實類似歐盟及中國的碳市場，它們最大的差別在於：前者可由企業自行決定加入與否，後兩者則強制達一定排放量的企業加入。CCX失敗的例子，恰恰說明了缺乏國家明確方向的指引，單靠企業憑良心加入的自願性市場，發展仍然有限。 最後，本論文提出對我國碳交易後續規劃方向的7項建議，以及後續論文研究方向的3項建議。 / With the rapid growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, impacts of climate change become more serious. To reduce GHG emissions, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. Various carbon markets have been structured at the domestic or international level, especially since the introduction of three flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. To demonstrate Taiwan’s commitment to combating climate change in line with the global trend, the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Management Act was promulgated by the president on 1 July 2015. It provides a legal basis for establishing a cap and trade system, and a compliance carbon market will be structured in Taiwan. In this paper, we consider the world’s three major carbon markets, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chinese seven official ETS pilots. This study seeks to provide some suggestions for future carbon transactions in Taiwan from their evolution experiences. The discussions developed in this study will focus on their historical backgrounds, system designs, allowance transactions, and emission reductions achievement. By comparing their evolution experiences, we find critical success factors behind carbon markets. Finally, suggestions for Taiwan’s government and future researches are presented.