摘要
隨著全球經濟發展所伴隨的產業高度工業化，環境汙染及溫室氣體的過度排放所導致的地球暖化現象，已經廣受世人關注。其中影響氣候變遷的主要因素之一，就是溫室氣體的排放量。1997年通過的京都議定書與2012持續召開的聯合國氣候變遷會議都再再地顯示各國對氣候變遷現象的重視。但無可避免的是各經濟體的生產行為一定會伴隨溫室氣體尤其是二氧化碳的排放，因此了解全球重要經濟體的經濟成長與二氧化碳排放情況，是一個值得研究與關心的議題。
針對經濟發展造成的環境的影響，本研究試圖以G20成員國(Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors；二十國財政部長和中央銀行行長會議會員國)為研究對象，將二氧化碳排放量當成非意欲產出，然後以資料包絡分析法(Data Envelopment Analysis; DEA)來探討各經濟體之經濟發展(購買力平價為指標)與環境績效評估(二氧化碳排放量為指標)。研究後所得到的結果如下：
1. 2008-2010年評比為有效率之國家數目減少 (由6個減為4個)。
2. 2008-2010年連續三年表現有效率的國家為－阿根廷、法國、義大利與美國；連續三年效率最差的國家是南非。
3. 2008-2010年經濟發展績效進步的國家為澳洲、德國、韓國與英國。
4. 相較於G20成員國之亞洲成員國，台灣的效率比日本、沙烏地阿拉伯差，但比中國、印度、印尼、南韓與土耳其為佳。

ABSTRACT
The global warming caused by the environmental pollution and excessive emissions of greenhouse gases due to highly industrialization associated with economic development has attracted world-wide concern. One of the major factors that affect the climate change is greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997 and United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2012 showed continuing concern about climate change. But production activities are always accompanied by the emission of greenhouse gases, especially the carbon dioxide. Therefore, understanding the relationship between economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions of the major economies is a topic worthy of study and concern.
In order to understand the impact of economic development on environment, this study attempts to use G20 countries (Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors) as the research subjects and carbon dioxide emission as an undesirable output to assess the economic development (Purchasing Power Parity as the indicator) and environmental performance (carbon dioxide emissions as the indicator) of G20 countries using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). The results obtained by this study are:
1. The number of efficient countries decreased from six to four during 2008-2010.
2. During 2008-2010, the efficient countries for three consecutive years were Argentina, France, Italy and the United States；The least efficient country for three consecutive years was South Africa.
3. The G20 countries with improved economic development performance during 2008-2010 were Australia, Germany, South Korea and the United Kingdom.
4. Comparison among Asian G20 countries, the efficiency of Taiwan was worse than that of Japan and Saudi Arabia, but better than that of China, India, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey.

參考文獻
1. Ang, B.W. (1999). “Is the energy intensity a less useful indicator than the carbon factor in the study of climate change?” Energy Policy, Volume 27, Issue 15, 943-946.
2. Arcelus, F.J. and Arocena, P. (2005). “Productivity differences across OECD countries in the presence of environmental constraints” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Volume 56, 1352-1362.
3. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W. (1984). “Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis” Management Science, Volume 30, Vol. 9, 1078-1092.
4. Barla, P. and Perelman, S. (2005). “Sulphur emissions and productivity growth in industrialized countries” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Volume 76, 275-300.
5. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., and Rhodes, E. (1978). “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units” European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 2, Issue 6, 429-444.
6. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., and Hernandez-Sancho, F. (2004). “Environmental performance: an index number approach” Resource and Energy Economics, Volume 26, 343-352.
7. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., and Logan, J. (1985). “The relative performance of publicly-owned and privately-owned electric utilities” Journal of Public Economics, Volume 26, 89-106.
8. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., and Pasurka, Jr., C.A. (2001). “Accounting for air pollution emissions in measures of state manufacturing productivity growth” Journal of Regional Science, Volume 41, 381-409.
9. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., and Tyteca, D. (1996). “An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities” Ecological Economics, Volume 18, 161-175.
10. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Yaisawarng, S., Li, S.K., and Wang, Z.P. (1990). “Productivity growth in Illinois electric utilities” Resource and Energy, Volume 12, 383-398.
11. Hjalmarsson, L. and Veiderpass, A. (1992). “Productivity in Swedish electricity retail distribution” Journal of Economics, Volume 94, 193-205.
12. Jamasb, T. and Pollitt, M. (2003). “International benchmarking and regulation: an application to European electricity distribution utilities” Energy Policy, Volume 31, 1609-1622.
13. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992). “The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance” Harvard Business Review, January-February, 71-79.
14. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996). “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system” Harvard Business Review, January-February, 75-129.
15. Kortelainen, M. (2008). “Dynamic environmental performance analysis: a Malmquist index approach” Ecological Economics, Volume 64, 701-715.
16. Kumar, S. (2006). “Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist–Luenberger index” Ecological Economics, Volume 56, 280-293.
17. Patterson, M.G. (1996). “What is energy efficiency? Concepts, indicators and methodological issues” Energy Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 5, 377-390.
18. Mielnik, O. and Goldemberg, J. (1999). “Communication the evolution of the “carbonization index” in developing countries,” Energy Policy, Volume 27, Issue 5, 307-308.
19. Norman, M. and Stoker, B. (1991). “Performance, efficiency and data envelopment analysis”, in Norman, M. and Stoker, B. (eds.) Data Envelopment Analysis: the Assessment of Performance (pp. 1-20), New York: John Wiley & Sons.
20. Ramanathan, R. (2002). “Combining indicators of energy consumption and CO2 emissions: a cross-country comparison” International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Volume 17, 214-227.
21. Tol, R.S.J., Pacala, S.W., and Socolow, R.H. (2009). “Understanding long-term energy use and Carbon Dioxide emissions in the USA” Journal of Policy Modeling, Volume 31, P425-445.
22. Weyman-Jones, T.G. (1991). “Productive efficiency in a regulated industry: the area electricity boards of England and Wales” Energy Economics, Volume 13, 116-122.
23. Yunos, J.M. and Hawdon, D. (1997). “The efficiency of the National Electricity Board in Malaysia: an intercountry comparison using DEA” Energy Economics, Volume 19, 255-269.
24. Zaim, O. and Taskin, F. (2000). “Environmental efficiency in carbon dioxide emissions in the OECD: a non-parametric approach” Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 58, 95-107.
25. Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., and Poh, K.L. (2006). “Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance” Ecological Economics, Volume 60, 111-118.
26. Zhou, P., Poh, K.L., and Ang, B.W (2007). “A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance” European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 178, 1-9.
27. Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., and Han, J.Y. (2010). “Total factor carbon emission performance: a Malmquist index analysis” Energy Economics, Volume 32, 194-201.
28. Zofio, J. and Prieto, A.M. (2001). “Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries” Resource and Energy Economics, Volume 23, 63-83.
29. 徐光威 (2011)，「融入碳排放量的企業績效評估－以全球五百大企業為例」，國立中央大學企業管理學系，碩士論文。
30. 王肇偉 (2011)，歐盟、美國及中國在根本哈根氣候變遷會議之策略研究，歐洲國際評論，第七期，頁147-178。
31. 韓柏壽 (2009)，「台灣海運公司經營績效之研究－資料包絡分析法(DEA)之應用」，國立台灣海洋大學商船學系，碩士論文。
32. 陳紹良 (2010)，「應用DEA評估國內四個港口績效」，國立東華大學高階經營碩士在職專班，碩士論文。
33. 郭文凱 (2008)，「台灣國際觀光旅館經營效率與生產力之研究－DEA、SFA、Malmquist之應用」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所，碩士論文。
34. 林逸銘 (2012)，「應用DEA方法評估台灣半導體產業經營績效之研究」，義守大學工業管理系，碩士論文。
35. 邱吉鶴（2001），「行政機關績效評估制度之研究」，台北大學企業管理學系，碩士論文。
36. 孫遜（2004），「資料包絡分析法–理論與運用」，揚智文化，台北。
37. 高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki S.（2003），「管理績效評估：資料包絡分析法」，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北。
38. 薄喬萍（2005），「績效評估之資料包絡分析法」，五南圖書，台北。
39. 薄喬萍（2008），「D.B.A.在績效評估之綜合應用」，五南圖書，台北。
40. 行政院國家科學委員全球資訊網，http://web1.nsc.gov.tw/
41. World Nuclear Association，http://www.world-nuclear.org/
42. The World Bank，http://www.worldbank.org/
43. Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania，https://pwt.sas.upenn.edu/index.html
44. 行政院環境保護署全球資訊網，http://www. epa.gov.tw/index.aspx
45. International Energy Agency，http://www.iea.org