Towards a sustainable recovery? Carbon pricing policy changes during COVID-19
發表日期：2022-3-10
作者：OECD；翻譯：吳名翊；校稿：鍾宜珈
引用來源：https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/towards-a-sustainable-recovery-carbon-pricing-policy-changes-during-covid-19-92464d20/
『參考要點』：本報告重點介紹碳定價在 COVID-19疫情後的復甦和實現國家及國際氣候目標（如：《巴黎協定》的目標）中可以發揮的作用。它概述了在COVID-19期間發生時47 個經濟合作暨發展組織（Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD）和 G20 國家中 20 個月（2020 年 1 月至 2021 年 8 月）的碳定價政策變化，如：排放交易計畫 （ETS）、化石燃料支持 （FFS）、碳、燃料消費稅和航空稅。在此期間發生了 99 起碳定價政策變化事件，其中大多數預計，這將對溫室氣體的排放產生負面影響。然而，具備氣候正向效益的政策變化在排放部門的影響範圍更加廣泛，因此可能超過氣候消極的政策變化。
This brief focuses on the role carbon pricing can play in the COVID-19 recovery and in reaching national and international climate goals, such as those in the Paris Agreement. Itoutlinesthe carbon pricing policy changes （Emissions Trading Schemes （ETS）, fossil fuel support （FFS）, carbon, fuel excise and aviation taxes） that took place during the first 20 months of the pandemic （January 2020 to August 2021） in the 47 OECD and G20 countries. There had been 99 incidents of carbon pricing policy changes during this period, with the majority expected to have a negative effecton greenhouse gas emissions. However, policy changes with climate-positive effects were broader in scope regarding coverage of emissions and sectorsand are, thus, likely to outweigh the climate-negative policy changes.
『相關字彙』：排放交易計畫（Emissions Trading Schemes）、航空（aviation）、氣候正效益（climate-positive）、碳定價（carbon pricing）
碳定價可以支持 COVID-19 的複甦和《巴黎協定》
Carbon pricing can support the COVID-19 recovery and the Paris Agreement.
COVID-19 對全球社會和經濟產生了重大影響。作為 COVID-19 複甦計畫的一部分，各國政府採取了一系列社會和經濟措施來減輕這些影響。其中一些舉措會對各國未來的溫室氣體排放產生直接或間接影響，從而影響各國實現短期和長期氣候目標的成本和可能性（經濟合作暨發展組織，2021[1]）。與此同時，政府間氣候變遷專門委員會 （IPCC） 的最新報告指出，除非溫室氣體排放量在未來幾十年內大幅減少，否則將全球暖化控制在2°C 或 1.5°C以下（如：《巴黎協定》）將無法實現（IPCC，2021[2]）。
COVID-19 significantly impacted societies and economies globally. Governments responded with a range of social and economic measures to cushion these impacts as part of their COVID-19 recovery plans. Some of these efforts have direct or indirect consequences on countries’ future GHG emissions and, thereby, on the cost and likelihood of countries achieving short and long-term climate goals （OECD, 2021[1]）. In the meantime, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change （IPCC） state that unless a deep cut in GHG emissions occurs within the following decades, limiting global warming to well below 2°C or 1.5°C, as stated in the Paris Agreement, would be unattainable （IPCC, 2021[2]）.
溫室氣體排放定價、減少或取消政府對化石燃料和航空業的支持，是提高排放價格的有效政策手段，從而推動投資和消費者選擇低碳。此外，碳定價收入、取消化石燃料、支持節省的公共支出，可用於支持弱勢群體、資助復甦措施或幫助減少與 COVID-19 相關的債務。
Pricing GHG emissions, reducing or removing government support to fossil fuels and the aviation industry are effective policy means to increase the price of emissions and thus push investment and consumer choices towards low-carbon options. Furthermore, the revenue from carbon pricing or the public expenditure saved from removing fossil fuel support can be used to support vulnerable population groups, finance recovery measures or help reduce COVID-19-related debt.
在 COVID-19之前，碳價格水平和排放覆蓋率太低，無法達到與《巴黎協定》保持一致所需的減排水平。2030 年要達成《巴黎協定》，碳價格將需要達到每噸 CO
2（t/CO
2 ） 43-86歐元（約新臺幣1,350-2,699元）（碳價高層委員會，2017[3]）。然而，在 2018 年，44 個經濟合作暨發展組織和 G20 國家中只有 45%與能源相關的二氧化碳排放面臨碳定價，這還有很大的改進空間（OECD，2021[4]）。
Carbon price levels and coverage of emissions had been too low before the COVID-19 pandemic to attain the reduction levels needed to align with the Paris Agreement. Reaching the Paris Agreement would require a carbon price in the range of EUR 43-86 per tonne of CO2 （t/CO2） by 2030 （High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, 2017[3]）. Yet, in 2018, only 45% of energy-related CO2 emissions in 44 OECD and G20 countries faced a carbon price, leaving a lot of room for improvement （OECD, 2021[4]）.
此政策報告調查了在 COVID-19 前 20 個月內，47個經濟合作暨發展組織和G20國家（2020 年 1 月至 2021 年 8 月）發生的碳定價政策變化（即碳稅、排放交易計畫（ETS）、燃料消費稅、航空稅和化石燃料支持（FFS）的發展情況。政策報告基於經濟合作暨發展組織為碳市場平台（CMP）所制定的工作報告：《碳定價和 COVID-19：經濟合作暨發展組織和 G20 國家的政策變化、挑戰和設計選擇》（經濟合作暨發展組織，即將出版）。碳市場平台的報告和政策報告涵蓋了政策改變的數量。碳市場平台不評估碳定價政策或沒有發生任何政策改變的溫室氣體覆蓋率或總體溫室氣體的影響。
This policy brief investigates the developments of carbon pricing policy changes （i.e. carbon taxes, Emissions Trading Schemes （ETS）, fuel excise taxes, aviation taxes, and fossil fuel support （FFS）） that occurred in the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic （January 2020 – August 2021） in the 47 OECD and G20 countries. The policy brief is based on the OECD working paper developed for the Carbon Market Platform （CMP）: Carbon pricing and COVID-19: Policy changes, challenges and design options in OECD and G20 countries （OECD, forthcoming）. The CMP paper and this policy brief cover the number of policy changes. They do not assess the GHG coverage or the aggregate GHG impact of carbon pricing policies or existing policies that did not undergo any policy changes.
COVID-19 前 20 個月碳定價政策的變化
Carbon pricing policy changes during the first 20 months of COVID-19
2020年1月至2021年8月期間，47個經濟合作暨發展組織和G20國家中的 37 個國家發生了 99 起碳定價的政策變化。這些政策變化中有56%會增加溫室氣體排放，因此是「對氣候不利的」。這些對氣候不利的政策變化中，大多數（78%）是暫時的，範圍相對較小，主要源於航空和化石燃料部門對 COVID-19 的影響。由於全球遏制措施大幅地減少對這兩個產業的需求，這些產業受到了深遠的影響。－避免航空業破產（經濟合作暨發展組織，2020[5]）；依賴石油出口的國家的債務不斷攀升（經濟合作暨發展組織，2020[6]）; 在 COVID-19 期間制定了支持產業和消費者的政策以及對弱勢家庭的影響（IISD，2020[7]）。
A total of 99 cases of carbon pricing policy changes took place in 37 of the 47 OECD and G20 countries between January 2020 and August 2021 （Figure 1）. 56% of these policy changes would increase GHG emissions and were thus “climate-negative”. Most （78%） of these climate-negative policy changes were temporary, relatively small in scope and mainly stemmed from COVID-19 responses in the aviation and fossil fuel sectors. These sectors were deeply impacted as the global containment measures significantly reduced the demand for both. To avoid bankruptcies in the aviation sector （OECD, 2020[5]）; spiralling debt in countries dependent on oil exports （OECD, 2020[6]）; and impact on vulnerable households, policies supporting the industries and consumers were put in place during COVID-19 （IISD, 2020[7]）.
44% 的碳定價政策變化將會減少溫室氣體排放，因此是「氣候正向效益」。這些主要源於排放交易計畫、碳和燃料消費稅的政策變化。幾乎所有對氣候有利的變化都是永久性的，並常在 COVID-19之前就已計畫好，在前20個月內實施。此外，這些政策變化的排放覆蓋面更廣，例如：中國碳交易體系的推出，覆蓋了國內40%的溫室氣體排放量，相當於全球溫室氣體排放量的7%以上。氣候正向效益變化的排放覆蓋範圍更大，與氣候負向變化相反，因此可能超過氣候負向變化的氣候影響。
44% of the carbon pricing policy changes were expected to reduce GHG emissions and were thus “climate-positive”. These mainly originated from policy changes in ETS, carbon and fuel excise taxes. Virtually all climate-positive changes were permanent and often planned before COVID-19 yet implemented during the first 20 months of it. In addition, these policy changes were broader in emissions coverage, such as the launch of the Chinese ETS, covering 40% of domestic GHG emissions, equivalent to more than 7% of global GHG emissions. As opposed to climate-negative changes, climate-positive changes are larger in emissions coverage and, thus, likely to outweigh the climate impact of the climate-negative changes.
疫情並沒有破壞排放交易計畫、碳和燃料消費稅的計畫和永久性政策變化的實施。一些國家（例如：加拿大、印度尼西亞、以色列）也宣布可能實施或加強碳定價計畫。例如：加拿大宣布將聯邦最低碳價從2021年的40加元/tCO
2（約新臺幣919元）提高到2030年的170加元/tCO
2（約新臺幣3,905元）。然而，只有少數國家（如：丹麥）明確地將碳定價納入其復甦計畫。
The pandemic did not derail the implementation of the planned and permanent policy changes in ETS, carbon and fuel excise taxes. Some countries （e.g. Canada, Indonesia, Israel） also announced possible implementation or strengthening of carbon pricing schemes. For example, Canada announced an increase of its federal minimum carbon price from CAD 40/tCO2 in 2021 to CAD 170/tCO2 in 2030. However, only a few countries （e.g. Denmark） explicitly integrated carbon pricing in their recovery plans.
各國的政策變化各不相同。在47個經濟合作暨發展組織和G20相關國家中，只有12個國家進行了對氣候不利的政策改變，而只有11個國家進行了氣候正向效益的改變。14個國家的政府，發出了混合的碳定價訊息，增強了某些舉措的訊息，但削弱了其他舉措的訊息。另有10個國家未觀察到變化。
Policy changes varied across countries. Out of the 47 OECD and G20 countries concerned, 12 countries had carried out exclusively climate-negative policy changes, while 11 carried out exclusively climate-positive changes. In 14 countries, governments sent mixed carbon pricing signals, strengthening the signal for some instruments but weakening it for others. No changes were observed in 10 countries.