邇來各國政府競相依淨零承諾與減碳目標推動政策，我國亦提出“臺灣2050淨零排放路徑及策略”，雖有明確目標，惟根據本研究結果，現行政策恐無法悉所達成。衡諸國際作法與因應淨零碳排情勢，如何藉由減緩策略立基的解決面向、策略行動，以及其與達成目標的差距規劃，乃既有文獻及研究相對忽視之部分。本研究所建構A-S-A-P model ，始由單變量時間序列(ARIMA model)，運用次級資料為基礎預測溫室氣體排放量，模擬未來之情境分析(Scenario analysis)，再設算與國家自定預期貢獻之差距，提出每5年為一期亟須採取行動之碳排量(Action plan)，最後提出管理面之政策意涵(Policy implication) 。本研究結果與目前政策相較下，確實發現不一致之處;爰此，謹研提建議供各界作為未來決策參據：(1) 針對整體受訪者與各專家群體評選之策略優先性，經分析結果互有不同，惟就淨零碳排係屬重要性議題上，咸有其共識存在。(2) 在達成目標前提下，無論現況、既定政策、考量自然風險值及延遲效應等情境，運用科技創新、行為改變、碳定價及自然為本解方，皆極為重要。(3) 我國實有必要加速期程，並師法國際制定更具影響力的政策和因應措施，冀期實踐淨零碳排之願景。;The urgency to respond to net zero commitments requires a more precise application of management tools to strategic priorities. The need for the government to promote relevant policies in full compliance with net zero commitments and carbon mitigation initiatives heightens the pressure for pledging net zero. This study contributes to the comprehensive analysis of proposed implementation solutions and mitigation actions related to net zero initiatives. The A-S-A-P model in this study, which applies the ARIMA approach to facilitate the prediction of greenhouse gas emissions, scenario analysis in modeling simulation, action mitigation schemes to close the gap between ambition target and projected mitigation timelines, and policy implications to prioritize emission mitigation pathways, is developed. The results of this study indicates that the A-S-A-P model offers an out-of-the-box solution to assist policymakers and related stakeholders. This finding prompted the following analyses: (1) Diverse analytical results from the overall stakeholder group are different, but the results showed consensus on the imperativeness of the net zero pledge and emissions mitigation target; (2) All the simulated conditions, including “business as usual scenario,” “stated policy scenario,” “natural hazard scenario” and “postponement scenario” cannot meet the assumptions of Taiwan’s nationally determined contributions. Considering the objectives of the “Priority for Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Pathway,” technology-based solutions, behavioral changes, carbon pricing, and nature-based solutions are suggested; and (3) An accelerated timetable for more effective policies and responses aligned with global trends is required.
