壓力臨界點 也是永續轉型決勝點
2026年，全球碳排放治理將邁入一個嶄新階段。歐盟CBAM（碳邊境調整機制）將正式進入課徵期，英國與澳洲也已陸續提出相似機制草案；美國則推出外國污染費用法案（Foreign Pollution Fee Act, FPFA），對來自高碳強度國家的進口產品徵收額外費用。
碳不再只是企業內部成本項目，而是直接影響國際貿易流通與企業信用評等的關鍵因素。這些變化為全球供應鏈注入新的合規標準與價值重估機制。對於以出口為主的台灣企業而言，2026年既是壓力臨界點，也是轉型決勝點。
台版CBAM申報制度 三項關鍵挑戰
根據環境部推動時程，台灣碳費制度2025年正式上路，涵蓋大型排放源企業，並分3期提供費率優惠，搭配「高碳洩漏風險認定」機制，以平衡企業競爭力與排放責任。
同時，台灣規劃自2026年起試行「台版CBAM」申報制度，針對水泥、鋼鐵等高碳製程產業進行碳排放量試申報，預計2027年正式進入台灣的CBAM元年。該機制並將做為對應歐盟、英國等碳邊境政策的技術基礎與合規門檻。
然而，與國際機制相比，台灣制度仍存在三項關鍵挑戰：首先，未與碳權市場接軌，缺乏可抵扣性價值。國際CBAM制度多建立在碳權交易基礎上，如EU ETS、UK ETS，排放單位具市場價值與抵扣功能。反觀台灣以固定費率為主，尚未建立碳權市場，導致缺乏國際承認的抵扣依據。
其次，碳價無即時市場透明性。現行碳費由主管機關公告，並無浮動拍賣或即時定價制度，難以對應CBAM中所需的「每週平均碳價」計算基礎，降低國際可比性。
第三則是碳盤查與驗證體系尚未成熟。MRV（監測、報告、驗證）制度尚處建置初期，多數企業仍以估算方式進行盤查，缺乏產品層級碳足跡數據，難以支撐國際通關或碳稅折抵要求。
NESO事件 碳市場信任危機三風險
英國近期發生的國家電力系統營運單位（NESO）IT平台故障事件，凸顯碳市場信任機制的脆弱性。該平台原用於協助優先排序再生能源專案併網，但技術失效導致逾5,000件、總容量達738 GW的專案排程延宕，直接衝擊英國2030年再生能源與碳中和目標。
這不是單一國家的技術故障，而是揭露全球碳市場高度依賴「治理透明度」與「資訊預見性」的現實挑戰。我認為這項事件至少揭示三大全球性風險。首先是供應瓶頸。併網延宕代表碳權發行進度同步停滯，將影響碳信用市場供需平衡。
其次，殭屍專案擠壓真正產能。低可行性、長期無進度的「殭屍型專案」仍佔據資源，導致高潛力專案被排擠；最後一項風險是治理信任危機。再生能源與碳信用市場的穩定性，仰賴制度的可信度，政府機構或系統一旦失效，將直接衝擊投資信心與碳定價的可信性。
建立整合性預測信任架構以應變
因應上述挑戰，未來碳信用與永續價值鏈的核心，將不再只是數據記錄或政策遵循，而是要建立一套整合性的預測與信任架構，其核心內容首先應包含專案可行性的篩選機制。應運用技術模型與情境模擬工具，針對再生能源與碳減量項目進行可交付性評分，排除殭屍項目，優先資源配置。
其次，建構碳信用預測模型。將專案進度、碳權審核時程與供需市場動態納入變數分析，建立交付時間預測，以降低買方風險與價格波動壓力。第三，推動基礎建設導向的政策設計。
這些政策設計，政府應思考導入以基礎設施瓶頸為導向的碳信用激勵設計，釋放併網優先紅利、提前認列減排效益，縮短專案進入市場的週期。在上述架構中，MRV制度、碳價透明化與市場連結，將成為不可或缺的技術基礎；也是接軌國際的先決條件。
制度對接價值轉型 轉風險為優勢
2026年不啻是全球永續政策的分水嶺，對台灣來說不僅是合規上的挑戰，更是制度與價值觀轉型的臨界點。若無法建立具有國際連結性的碳價與碳信用體系，台灣出口導向產業將面臨邊境稅收與產品碳足跡的雙重壓力。
不過，台灣產業若能重新定義自身定位，快速部署永續商業模式的預測工具、建構可信賴的碳資訊流、參與國際碳價互認與資料交換體系，則仍有相當機會可以化風險為優勢，在永續競爭浪潮中脫穎而出。（本文由益珂環能英譯並同步於英國發表）
--
The 2026 Sustainability Watershed: Taiwan’s Policy Challenges and Industrial Crossroads
By Dr. Chia-Hao Chou
Global Carbon Rules Are Redefining Competitive Advantage—Is Taiwan Ready?
The year 2026 marks a pivotal moment in global climate governance. The European Union will begin officially enforcing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), followed closely by similar policy frameworks from the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. The U.S. has already introduced the Foreign Pollution Fee Act (FPFA), which proposes levies on imported goods from countries with higher carbon intensities.
In this emerging regulatory landscape, carbon emissions are no longer just an internal cost consideration. Instead, they are becoming a strategic determinant of trade access, financial valuation, and corporate credibility. For export-oriented economies like Taiwan—where manufacturing accounts for over 90% of total exports—2026 may well define the next generation of global competitiveness.
Taiwan’s Progress: Carbon Fee System and CBAM Trial Mechanism
Taiwan is scheduled to implement its national carbon fee system in 2025. Large emitters will be subject to fees based on their emissions, with a phased discount scheme (starting at 0.2 and gradually rising to 0.6) for those who submit verified emission reduction plans. A parallel “carbon leakage risk recognition” mechanism aims to reduce cost burdens for energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries.
To address international trade pressures, Taiwan has also introduced its own “trial CBAM” program, expected to be finalized in early 2026. Industries such as cement and steel will be required to report product-level emissions under a pilot framework, with 2027 marked as the beginning of Taiwan’s formal CBAM implementation.
However, significant gaps remain between Taiwan’s approach and international carbon border mechanisms:
Lack of Carbon Market Linkage and Tradable Value
Global CBAM schemes—such as the EU ETS and UK ETS—are grounded in carbon trading markets. Taiwan’s fixed-fee structure lacks a tradable carbon asset base, making it difficult for Taiwanese credits or payments to be recognized under international offset mechanisms.
Absence of Real-Time, Transparent Carbon Pricing
Taiwan’s carbon fee is set by regulatory authorities and not determined through transparent, market-based pricing systems. This reduces the comparability of Taiwan’s carbon cost with international standards that rely on weekly carbon auction prices.
Underdeveloped MRV Infrastructure
The Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system is still in its early stages. Most businesses rely on rough estimates or facility-level reporting, with few having product-level carbon footprint data to meet international CBAM requirements.
The UK’s NESO Breakdown: A Global Wake-Up Call on Carbon Market Fragility
Taiwan’s institutional challenges are not unique. In June 2025, the UK’s National Energy System Operator (NESO) experienced a major IT platform failure that delayed over 5,000 renewable energy projects (738 GW in capacity) from connecting to the grid. Many of these projects were poised to generate verifiable carbon credits crucial to the UK’s 2030 climate targets.
This incident revealed several systemic vulnerabilities:
Supply Bottlenecks in Carbon Credits
Without grid connection, renewable projects cannot generate power—nor can they issue corresponding carbon credits. This delays the entire pipeline of high-quality credits that global markets rely upon.
“Zombie Projects” Blocking the Pipeline
Projects that are speculative or unlikely to reach execution continue to occupy queue positions, stalling viable and shovel-ready projects, and distorting market expectations.
Governance and Trust Deficits
The failure has eroded investor confidence in both infrastructure coordination and the credibility of carbon credit issuance. This demonstrates that effective carbon markets are as much about governance as they are about technology.
This isn’t just a British issue—it’s a global lesson in the importance of foresight, coordination, and trust in carbon governance.
Structural Solutions: Building Trust, Forecasting Credibility, and Enabling Value
Addressing these intertwined challenges will require a comprehensive approach that goes beyond emissions accounting. The next-generation carbon economy must be built on three strategic pillars:
Project Viability Screening
Governments and financial institutions should apply data-driven models to assess the deliver-ability of renewable and carbon reduction projects, ensuring that resources are prioritized for high-impact initiatives.
Carbon Credit Forecasting Tools
Predictive models incorporating project timelines, regulatory cycles, and market dynamics can help buyers and registries estimate carbon credit delivery windows, reducing market volatility and investment uncertainty.
Infrastructure-Linked Policy Design
Carbon credit issuance should be tied to infrastructure readiness (e.g., grid connection) rather than mere project approval. Policymakers should explore incentives like early-stage credits or performance guarantees to de-risk development bottlenecks.
Building such a framework requires credible MRV systems, transparent carbon pricing, and strong data governance—none of which can be treated as optional in today’s carbon-constrained global economy.
Conclusion: Alignment and Transformation Are No Longer Optional
The year 2026 will not merely be a compliance deadline—it will define which economies can align with global climate standards while preserving industrial relevance. Without carbon pricing comparability, MRV robustness, and transparent credit systems, Taiwanese exports risk facing dual threats: carbon tariffs at borders and reputational costs in global value chains.
However, if Taiwan can move quickly to deploy predictive sustainability tools, institutionalize carbon data integrity, and engage in international carbon price harmonization, it has the potential to transition from policy follower to climate value innovator.
The choice is not between cost and sustainability—but between reactive survival and proactive leadership in the post-carbon economy.
延伸閱讀
- 碳資產流通 臺灣一舉兩得的第三道路
- 當地球升溫碰上政策冷感 風險正加速
- 不是打經濟牌 川普揭開地緣博弈序曲
- 前瞻碳市場整合 周家豪COP29談做法
- 川普2.0 周家豪 : 起而行引領永續轉型
- 氣候敲警鐘 周家豪：化挑戰為競爭力
- 益珂碳中和供應商 周家豪：揮軍全球
