請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101611完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 葉俊榮 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Jiunn-rong Yeh | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 張簡浩呈 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hao-Chen Chang-Chien | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-02-11T16:45:44Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-02-12 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-02-11 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-02-05 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
專書 林春元（2017）。氣候變遷全球行政法的演變、形貌與影響。國立臺灣大學出版中心。 周桂田（2024）。氣候變遷社會學：高碳社會及其轉型挑戰（修訂版）。國立臺灣大學出版中心。 葉俊榮（1999）。行政法案例分析與研究方法。三民。 葉俊榮（2015）。氣候變遷治理與法律。國立臺灣大學出版中心。 葉俊榮（2020）。組織建制。載於葉俊榮、張文貞、林春元（編），建構氣候轉型立法：比較立法與議題論述（377-393頁）。新學林。 葉俊榮（2025）。環境永續：脈絡、體制與法律。聯經。 葉俊榮（2025）。環境管制：權力、市場與責任。聯經。 廖福特（2011）。國家人權委員會。五南。 專書論文 林三欽（2010）。行政法人作為行政組織改造之選項。載於台灣行政法學會（編），行政組織與人事法制之新發展（91-137頁）。元照。 林李耀、陳永明、朱容練、朱蘭芬、李惠玲、黃嬿蓁、許晃雄、陳正達（2011）。臺灣氣候變遷推估與資訊平台建置計畫（TCCIP）介紹。載於交通部中央氣象局（編），建國百年天氣分析預報與地震測報研討會論文彙編（422-426頁）。交通部中央氣象局。 葉俊榮（2010）。大量環境立法――我國環境立法的模式、難題及因應方向。載於葉俊榮（著），環境政策與法律（73-133頁）。元照。（轉載於「大量環境立法：我國環境立法的模式、難題與因應方向」，1993，臺大法學論叢，22(1)，105-147） 葉俊榮（2010）。環境問題的制度因應――刑罰與其他因應措施的比較與選擇。載於葉俊榮（著），環境政策與法律（135-172頁）。元照。（轉載於「環境問題的制度因應：刑罰與其他因應措施的比較選擇」，1991，臺大法學論叢，20(2)，87-114） 期刊論文 杜文苓（2011）。環境風險與科技決策：檢視中科四期環評爭議。東吳政治學報，29（2），57-110。https://doi.org/10.6418/SJPS.201106.0057 杜文苓（2012）。環評制度中的專家會議―被框架的專家理性。臺灣民主季刊，9（3），119-155。https://doi.org/10.6448/TDQ.201209.0119 林子倫（2008）。台灣氣候變遷政策之論述分析。公共行政學報，28，153-175。https://doi.org/10.30409/JPA.200809_(28).0005 林春元（2023）。氣候緊急的制度量能―簡評氣候變遷因應法的廣泛授權與組織規劃。月旦法學雜誌，340，50-63。https://doi.org/10.53106/1025593134003 林春元（2024）。依附環境法發展的氣候訴訟與有限的司法對話―臺灣氣候訴訟的分析研究（2002-2022）。中研院法學期刊，35，69-134。https://publication.iias.sinica.edu.tw/30016042.pdf 林春元（2024）。超越政治或迎向政治？―總統氣候變遷對策委員會的功能定位與合憲性商榷。月旦法學雜誌，355，74-86。 https://doi.org/10.53106/1025593135505 周桂田（2004）。獨大的科學理性與隱沒（默）的社會理性之“對話”―在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討。台灣社會研究季刊，56，1-63。https://doi.org/10.29816/TARQSS.200412.0001 周桂田（2007）。新興風險治理典範之芻議。政治與社會哲學評論，22，179-233。https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532007090022004 施佳良、杜文苓（2017）。環境管制行政的科學技術框架與決策僵局：六輕工安事件環評過程析論。公共行政學報，52，81-111。https://doi.org/10.30409/JPA.201703_(52).0003 范玫芳（2014）。風險管理與程序正義：風力發電機設置爭議。民主與治理，1(2)，59-81。https://doi.org/10.3966/2311505X2014080102003 宮文祥（2010）。初探科學在環境法發展上所扮演的角色―以美國法為例。科技法學評論，7（2），129-180。 宮文祥（2023）。從管制科學的角度探討風險行政下透明、課責與參與之法的建構。公法研究，4，49-76。 徐美苓（2023）。臺灣能源轉型爭議論述的媒體建構：減碳、非核家園與空污防制的風險傳播多重難題。新聞學研究，154，1-54。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.202301.0001 高銘志（2022）。非核家園推動政策及法制二十年回顧與展望。公法研究，2，69-117。 張文貞（2021）。監察院憲政轉型的契機與挑戰―以人權為核心。月旦法學雜誌，318，88-10。 陳亮宇、徐俊明（2023）。環境法案如何進入政策議程？如何獲得立法通過？《溫室氣體減量及管理法》的個案分析（2006～2015）。政治學報，76，111-144。https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.202312_(76).0004 陳潁峰（2017）。科學事實建構與環評民主化：五件環評專家會議的啟示。科技醫療與社會，24，49-90。https://doi.org/10.6464/TJSSTM.201704_(24).0002 葉俊榮（2022）。論公民憲政主義下的臺灣防疫模式。臺大法學論叢，51(4)，1543-1596。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.202212_51(4).0004 學位論文 陳文葳（2015）。政府間氣候變遷小組的建構、組織與功能演變：以跨國法制歷程觀點分析［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺灣大學法律學院科際法律整合研究所。 網路文獻 立法院（2024，7月12日）。立法院公報第113卷第64期。立法院議事暨公報資訊網。 https://ppg.ly.gov.tw/ppg/PublicationBulletinDetail/download/communique1/final/pdf/113/64/LCIDC01_1136401.pdf 中華民國總統府（2024，6月19日）。總統宣布成立三個委員會 替國家發展擬定戰略 與民間力量展開對話。https://www.president.gov.tw/News/28514 中華民國總統府（2024，8月8日）。總統府國家氣候變遷對策委員會第1次委員會議會議紀錄。https://www.president.gov.tw/File/Doc/d662022a-d11f-45a2-b771-9935f5022071 中華民國總統府（2025，1月23日）。總統府國家氣候變遷對策委員會第3次委員會議會議紀錄。https://www.president.gov.tw/File/Doc/1c32883b-db59-46b8-91dd-4d4b912bf50b 中華民國總統府（2025，3月21日）。中華民國114年度中央政府總預算案審查總報告（修正本）（第四冊）。https://www.president.gov.tw/File/Doc/80c53ad7- 5cbf-443a-9460-f907a0d01e38 中華民國總統府（無日期）。國家氣候變遷對策委員會歷次會議資料。2026年2月1日，取自https://www.president.gov.tw/page/714#section1 行政法人國家災害防救科技中心（無日期）。任務運作。2026年2月1日，取自 https://www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/Page?itemid=20&mid=15 行政院（2016，9月17日）。為邁向2025非核家園目標 推動新能源政策。 https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41CCD91/c094fb4e-6c07-4a87-9435-fb97f11dde10 行政院（2024，9月18日）。中華民國114年度（114年1月1日至114年12月31日）中央政府總預算案歲出機關別預算表。行政院主計總處網站。 https://ws.dgbas.gov.tw/001/Upload/461/relfile/11333/233556/b%E6%AD%B2%E5%87%BA%E6%A9%9F%E9%97%9C%E5%88%A5%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E8%A1%A8(%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E6%9B%B8).pdf 行政院環境保護署氣候變遷辦公室（2022，4月21日）。行政院會通過「溫室氣體減量及管理法」修正為「氣候變遷因應法」強化氣候法制基礎，環境部新聞專區。https://enews.moenv.gov.tw/Page/3B3C62C78849F32F/99781cf8-4e99-42b9-a296-47ac347c50c5 孫文臨（2025，12月4日）。修法加嚴環評、限縮開發面積範圍，能否解決光電不當選址問題？。報導者。https://www.twreporter.org/a/more-stringent-environmental-impact-assessments-to-build-solar-facilities 陳昭宏（2025，4月16日）。台東海岸58座風機開發案輿論發酵 彭啟明：不支持陸域風電。環境資訊中心。https://e-info.org.tw/node/241119 國家發展委員會（無日期）。臺灣2050淨零路徑：臺灣總體減碳行動計劃。2026年2月1日，取自 https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=FD76ECBAE77D9811&upn=D34BDBBBF9103806 國家發展委員會（2025）。淨零路徑：臺灣總體檢碳行動計畫［PowerPoint投影片］。中華民國總統府。https://www.president.gov.tw/File/Doc/5f4b59c7-4352-4b67-a513-226c97f11635 許晃雄、王嘉琪、陳正達、李明旭、詹士樑（2024，6月3日）。國家氣候變遷科學報告2024：現象、衝擊與調適。臺灣氣候變遷推估資訊與調適知識平台。https://tccip.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/ScientificReport2024/dl_all.aspx 經濟部能源署（無日期）。能源指標。經濟部能源署能源統計。2026年2月1日，取自https://www.esist.org.tw/a0303/02/database/search/energy-index/ 劉佩鈴（2023，7月26日）。什麼是降尺度？為什麼降尺度不是越細越好？。臺灣氣候變遷推估資訊與調適知識平台。https://tccip.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/km_column_one.aspx?kid=20230725084802 環境權保障基金會（2024，1月30日）。【聯合新聞稿】首次氣候憲法訴訟，落實世代正義。https://erf.org.tw/news20240130/ 英文文獻 專書 Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage. (Original work published 1986) Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values: an introduction to values in science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001 Fisher, E. (2007). Risk: Regulation and administrative constitutionalism. Hart Publishing. Giddens, A. (2011), The politics of climate change (2nd ed.). Polity Press. Hochstetler, K. (2020). Political economies of energy transition: Wind and solar power in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge University Press. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton University Press. Keller, A. C. (2009). Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. The MIT Press. Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (updated 2nd ed.). Longman. Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. State University of New York Press. 專書論文 Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2019). The third wave of science studies. In T. L. Pittinsky (Ed.), Science, technology, and society: New perspectives and directions (pp. 79-108). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316691489 Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144-160). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001 Ghaleigh, N. S. (2016). Science and climate change law―the role of the IPCC in international decision-making. In K. R. Gray, R. Tarasofsky, & C. P. Carlarne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international climate change law (pp. 55-71). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199684601.001.0001 Michaels, D. (2010). Politicizing peer review: The scientific perspective. In W. Wagner, & R. Steinzor (Eds.), Rescuing science from politics: Regulation and the distortion of scientific research (pp. 219-237). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751776 Muinzer, T. L., & Little, G. M. (2020). A stocktake of legal research on the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act: Present understandings, future opportunities. In M. M. Roggenkamp, & C. Banet (Eds.), European energy law report XIII (pp. 421-442). Intersentia. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780689487 Shapiro, S. (2010). Politicizing peer review: The legal perspective. In W. Wagner, & R. Steinzor (Eds.), Rescuing science from politics: Regulation and the distortion of scientific research (pp. 238-254). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751776 期刊論文 Abraham-Dukuma, M. C., Dioha, M. O., Bogado, N., Butu, H. M., Okpaleke, F. N., Hasan, Q. M., Epe, S. B., & Emodi, N. V. (2020). Multidisciplinary composition of climate change commissions: Transnational trends and expert perspectives. Sustainability, 12(24), 10280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410280 Arlota, C. (2020). How President Trump’s war on science undermines cost-benefit analysis of climate change. Environmental Law Reporter, 50(12), 10999-11021. Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S., & Finnegan, J. J. (2021). The impact of strategic climate legislation: Evidence from expert interviews on the UK Climate Change Act. Climate Policy, 21(2), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1819190 Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S., & Finnegan, J. J. (2021). The influence of climate change advisory bodies on political debates: Evidence from the UK Committee on Climate Change. Climate Change, 21(9), 1218-1233. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1878008 Biber, E. (2012). Which science? Whose science? How scientific disciplines can shape environmental law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 79(2), 471-552. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41552908 Carmines, E. G., & Fowler, M. (2017). The temptation of executive authority: How increased polarization and the decline in legislative capacity have contributed to the expansion of presidential power. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 24(2), 369-398. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/indjglolegstu.24.2.0369 Carter, N., & Childs, M. (2018). Friends of the Earth as a policy entrepreneur: ‘The Big Ask’ campaign for a UK Climate Change Act. Environmental Politics, 27(6), 994-1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1368151 Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8086-8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100 Cassese, S. (2005). Administrative law without the state? The challenge of global regulation. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 37, 663-694. Castree, N., Adams, W. M., Barry, J., Brockington, D., Büscher, B., Corbera, E., Demeritt, D., Duffy, R., Felt, U., Neves, K., Newell, P., Pellizzoni, L., Rigby, K., Robbins, P., Robin, L., Rose, D. B., Ross, A., Schlosberg, D., Sörlin, S., … Wynne, B. (2014). Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change, 4, 763-768. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2339 Chang, W.-C. (2009). An isolated nation with global-minded citizens: Bottom-up transnational constitutionalism in Taiwan. National Taiwan University Law Review, 4(3), 203-235. Chaskalson, M., Jochelson, K., & Seekings, J. (1987). Rent boycotts, the state, and the transformation of the urban political economy in South Africa. Review of African Political Economy, 40, 47-64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4005798 Collins H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003 Conley, J. G. (2007). Conflict of interest and the EPA’s science advisory board. Texas Law Review, 86(1), 165-190. Cortez, N. (2019). Information mischief under the Trump administration. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 94(2), 315-348. De Donà, M., & Linke, S. (2023). ‘Close but not too close’ – experiences of science- policy bridging in three international advisory organizations. Critical Policy Studies, 17(1), 82-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2028173 Demeritt, D. (2001). The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 307-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00245 Di Paola, M., & Jamieson, D. (2018). Climate change and the challenges to democracy. University of Miami Law Review, 72(2), 369-424. Dubash, N. K. (2021). Varieties of climate governance: The emergence and functioning of climate institutions. Environmental Politics, 30(S1), S1–S25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1979775 Dudley, H., Jordan, A., & Lorenzoni, I. (2021). Advising national climate policy makers: A longitudinal analysis of the UK Climate Change Committee. Global Environmental Change, 76, 102589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102589 Dudley, H., Holmes, J., Jordan, A., & Lorenzoni, I. (in press). The policy impact of climate change advisory bodies: government responses to the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations, 2009–2020. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2025.2497881 Elliott, E. D. (1992). Global climate change and regulatory uncertainty. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 9(1), 259-266. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/659456 Eyers, A., & Howarth, C. (2024). The role and effectiveness of climate commissions in engaging the public on climate change in the UK. Environmental Science & Policy, 157, 103760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103760 Gilley, B. (2012). Authoritarian environmentalism and China’s response to climate change. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.651904 Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401 Heal, G., & Millner, A. (2014). Uncertainty and decision making in climate change economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), 120-137. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ret023 Ho, M.-S., & Huang, C.-H. (2026). “Green electricity cockroaches”: An environmental criminology of fraud, embezzlement, and bribery in Taiwan’s renewable energy development. Energy Research & Social Science, 132, 104552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2026.104552 Hoshijima, Y. (2017). Presidential administration and the durability of climate-consciousness. Yale Law Journal, 127(1), 170-245. Huang, G. C.-L., & Chen, R.-Y. (2021). Injustices in phasing out nuclear power?: exploring limited public participation and transparency in Taiwan’s transition away from nuclear energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 71, 101808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101808 Huszár, A. (2024). The growing significance of science advice in shaping EU climate policy: The initial activity of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change. Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, 12, 477-494. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748946526-477 Jabeile, J., & Roussos, J. (2023). Usability of climate information: Toward a new scientific framework. WIREs Climate Change, 14(5), e833. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.833 Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320 Jones, C. A. (2019). Weaponizing the EPA: Presidential control and wicked problems. Idaho Law Review, 55(1), 157-194. Kinsbury, B., Krisch, N., & Stewart, R. B. (2005). The emergence of global administrative law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 15-61. Koch, I. C., Vogel, C., & Patel, Z. (2007). Institutional dynamics and climate change adaptation in South Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 1323-1339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9054-5 Lai, Y., & Dzombak, D. A. (2019). Use of historical data to assess regional climate change. Journal of Climate, 32(14), 4299-4320. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0630.1 Lahsen, M. (2005). Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: The need for demarcations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(1), 137-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904270710 Latham, M. A. (2010). Bush v. Obama: The fight for the soul of science in environmental policymaking. Seattle Environmental Law Journal, 2010, 6-29. Latin, H. (1991). Regulatory failure, administrative incentives, and the new Clean Air Act. Environmental Law, 21(4), 1647-1720. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43266223 Latin, H. (2015). Climate change regulation and EPA disincentives. Environmental Law, 45(1), 19-73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43432863 Lin, A. C. (2019). President Trump’s war on regulatory science. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 43(2), 247-306. Lin, A. C. (2022). Climate policy buffers. Yale Journal on Regulation, 39(2), 699-743. Lin, T. T. C. (2022). Online opinions, sentiments and news framing of the first nuclear referendum in Taiwan: A mix-method approach. Asian Journal of Communication, 32(2), 152-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2021.2022728 Lindvall, D., & Karlsson, M. (2024). Exploring the democracy-climate nexus: A review of correlations between democracy and climate policy performance. Climate Policy, 24(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2256697 Lockwood, M. (2013) The political sustainability of climate policy: The case of the UK Climate Change Act. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1339-1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.001 Lockwood, M. (2021). A hard act to follow? The evolution and performance of UK climate governance. Environmental Politics, 30(S1), S26-S48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1910434 Lorenzoni, I., & Benson, D. (2014). Radical institutional change in environmental governance: Explaining the origins of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 through discursive and streams perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 29, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.011 Machin, A., & Smith, G. (2014). Ends, means, beginnings: Environmental technology, ecological deliberation or embodied disagreement. Ethical Perspectives, 21(1), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.21.1.3017286 Maclean, J. (2025). Prima facie regulatory capture: Lessons from EPA’s regulation of glyphosate and PFA’s ‘forever chemicals’. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 26(1), 1-88. Malo, J. S. (2025). Democracy and climate change for realists: An integrated empirical and normative assessment. Political Science Quarterly, 140(3), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqae118 Marquardt, J., Pfeiffer, F., Blum, M., Daw, T. M., Dugasseh, F. A., Heitzig, J., Hysing, E., Jensen, I. H. B., Kulha, K., Langkjær, F., Lindvall, D., Nasiritousi, N., Schlosberg, D., Toikka, A., & Tønder, L. (2025). Reconciling democracy and sustainability: Three political challenges and the role of democratic innovations. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 21(1), 2504239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2504239 Mashaw, J. & Berke, D. (2018). Presidential administration in a regime of separated powers: An analysis of recent American experience. Yale Journal on Regulation, 35(2), 549-616. McGregor, P. G., Swales, J. K., & Winning, M. A. (2012). A review of the role and remit of the Committee on Climate Change. Energy Policy, 41, 466-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.007 Mildenberger, M. (2021). The development of climate institutions in the United States. Environmental Politics, 30(S1), S71-S92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947445 MITTIGA, R. (2022). Political legitimacy, authoritarianism, and climate change. American Political Science Review, 116(3), 998-1011. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001301 Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes response to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103- 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013 Nash, S. L., & Steurer, R. (2019). Taking stock of Climate Change Acts in Europe: Living policy processes or symbolic gestures? Climate Policy, 19(8), 1052-1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623164 Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2022). From anti-government to anti-science: Why conservatives have turned against science. Daedalus, 151(4), 98-123. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01946 Orsini, A., Louafi, S., & Morin, J.-F., (2017). Boundary concepts for boundary work between science and technology studies and international relations: Special issue introduction. Review of Policy Research, 34(6), 734-743. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12273 Pahl, S., Sheppard, S., Boomsma, C., & Groves, C. (2014). Perceptions of time in relation to climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.272 Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2004). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy over the skeptical environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004 Pinto, M. F. & Hicks, D. J. (2019). Legitimizing values in regulatory science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(3), 035001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3317 Povitkina, M. (2018). The limits of democracy in tackling climate change. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1444723 Provost, G. (2019). Rigorous and relevant: Applying lessons from the history of IPCC Special Reports to the post-Paris Agreement world. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 43, 507-546. Purdy, J. (2010). The politics of nature: climate change, environmental law, and democracy. The Yale Law Journal, 119(6), 1122-1209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20698322 Reiss, D. R. (2012). The benefits of capture. Wake Forest Law Review, 47(3), 569-610. Rennkamp, B. (2019). Power, coalitions and institutional change in South African climate policy. Climate Policy, 19(6), 756-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1591936 Rich, R. F., & Merrick, K. R. (2007). Use and misuse of science: Global climate change and the Bush administration. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 14(3), 223-252. Robin, E. L. (2016). Rejecting climate change: Not science denial, but regulation phobia. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, 32(1), 103-150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26618629 Russell, I. S. (2019). The art and science of the (survival) deal: The role of administrative agencies in protecting the public against unreasonable risks. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, 87(3), 733-749. Schipper, E. L. F., Dubash, N. K., & Mulugetta, Y. (2021). Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climate Change, 168, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03237-3 Schulze, K. (2021). Policy characteristics, electoral cycles, and the partisan politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 21(2), 44-72. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00593 Seibicke, H. (2005). The institutional design of scientific advisory boards on climate change: A comparison at the intergovernmental, supranational, and national level. Global Challenges, 9(9), e00371. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202400371 Shapiro, S. A. (2009). “Political” science: Regulatory science after the Bush administration. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 4(1), 31-43. Shapiro, S. A. (2012). The complexity of regulatory capture: Diagnosis, causality, and remediation. Roger Williams University Law Review, 17(1), 101-137. Sherwin, B. D. (2019). The upside down: A new reality for science at the EPA and its impact on environmental justice. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 27(1), 57-105. Sibiya, N. P., Das, D. K., Vogel, C., Mazinyo, S. P., Zhou, L., Kalumba, M. A., Sithole, M., Adom, R., & Simatele, M. D. (2023). Overcoming bureaucratic resistance: An analysis of barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa. Climate, 11(7), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11070145 Smith L. A., & Stern, N. (2011). Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1956), 4818-4841. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0149 Spence, D. B. (2022). Naïve administrative law: Complexity, delegation and climate policy. Yale Journal on Regulation, 39(2), 964-1011. Thaw, D. (2014). Enlightened Regulatory Capture. Washington Law Review, 89(2), 329-377. Tyler, E., & Hochstetler, K. (2021). Institutionalising decarbonisation in South Africa: navigating climate mitigation and socio-economic transformation. Environmental Politics, 30(S1), S184-S205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947635 van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012 Virelli III, Science, Politics, and Administrative Legitimacy, 78 MO. L. REV. 511 (2013). Visschers, V. H. M. (2018). Public perception of uncertainties within climate change science. Risk Analysis, 38(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12818 Wagner, W. (1995). The science charade in toxic risk regulation. Columbia Law Review, 95(7), 1613-1723. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123193 Wagner, W. (2010). Administrative law, filter failure, and information capture. Duke Law Journal, 59(7), 1321-1432. Webb, R., Kurtz, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2020). When politics trump science: The erosion of science-based regulation. Environmental Law Reporter, 50, 10708. Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016 Yeh, J.-R. (1996). Institutional Capacity Building Toward Sustainable Development: Taiwan’s Environmental Protection in the Climate of Economic Development and Political Liberalization. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 6(2), 229-272. Yeh, J. R. (2015). Marching towards civic constitutionalism with Sunflowers. Hong Kong Law Journal, 45(1), 315-330. Yeh, J.-R., & Lin, C.-Y. (2018). The Paris Agreement and the transformation of global climate law: Taiwan’s perspective. National Taiwan University Law Review, 13(2), 149-182. Zeigermann, U., & Ettelt, S. (2022). Spanning the boundaries between policy, politics and science to solve wicked problems: Policy pilots, deliberation fora and policy labs. Sustainability Science, 18, 809-821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01187-y 網路文獻 2050 Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Commission. (n.d.). Introduction of Commission. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from http://webarchives.pa.go.kr/19th/www.2050cnc.go.kr/eng/contents/view?content sNo=35&menuLevel=2&menuNo=42 Cabinet Office. (n.d.). Classification of Public Bodies: Guidance for Departments, Public Bodies Handbook – Part 1. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519571/Classification-of-Public_Bodies-Guidance-for-Departments.pdf Clayton, H., Pidgeon, N., & Whitby, M. (2006, July 13). Is a Cross-Party Consensus on Climate Change Possible – Or Desirable? Report of the First Inquiry 2006. Online Research @ Cardiff. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Climate_Change_Consensus_Report_.pdf Climate Change Committee. (n.d.). About the Climate Change Committee. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/Energy Intense Users Group SA. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://eiug.org.za/ Environmental and Energy Law Program. (n.d.). Regulatory tracker. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker-type/regulatory- tracker/ Evans, N., & Duwe, M. (2021, May 12). Climate Governance Systems in Europe: The Role of National Advisory Bodies. Ecologic Institute. https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2021/Evans-Duwe-Climate-governance-in-Europe-the-role-of-national-advisory-bodies-2021-Ecologic-Institute.pdf GOV.UK. (n.d.). Committee on Climate Change. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/committee-on-climate-change GOV.UK. (n.d.). Guidance: Public Bodies. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-bodies-reform Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2008). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf International Energy Agency. (2022, June 30). Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions: From Today’s Challenges to Tomorrow’s Clean Energy Systems. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/016228e1-42bd-4ca7-bad9-a227c4a40b04/NuclearPowerandSecureEnergyTransitions.pdf International Energy Agency. (2025, April 10). Energy and AI. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/de9dea13-b07d-42c5-a398-d1b3ae17d866/EnergyandAI.pdf. Kluger, J. (2025, March 14). The True Cost of Trump’s Cuts to NOAA and NASA. Time. https://time.com/7267889/climate-cost-of-trump-staff-cuts-noaa-nasa/ Milman, O., & Noor, D. (2025, September 2). Trump Team’s Contentious Climate Report ‘Makes A Mockery of Science’, Experts Say. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/02/trump-administration-climate-report National Economic Development and Labour Council. (2025). Annual Report 2024/25. https://nedlac.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Nedlac-Annual-Report-2024-25-29082025.pdf Presidential Climate Commission. (2022, September 14). The Presidential Climate Commission’s First Annual Review: April 2021-March 2022. https://pccommissionflo.imgix.net/uploads/images/PCC-Annual-Review-2021-2022.pdf Presidential Climate Commission. (2025, August 11). Residential Climate Commission Annual Report 2024/2025. https://pccommissionflo.imgix.net/uploads/images/Presidential-Climate-Commission-Annual-Report-2024-2025_WEB_27_08_2025.pdf Presidential Climate Commission. (2025, December 5). 2020-2025 Building A Consensus for Climate Action: A Five-Year Review and Reflection of the Inaugural Presidential Climate Commission. https://pccommissionflo.imgix.net/uploads/images/251031-PCC-legacy- book_Highres.pdf Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. (n.d.) Silencing Science Tracker. Retrieved February 1, 2026, from https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science- Tracker South African History Online. (2023, January 23). A Short History of ESKOM, Part 1 (1923-2001). https://sahistory.org.za/article/short-history-eskom-part-1-1923- 2001 South African History Online. (2023, January 23). A Short History of ESKOM, Part 2 (2001-2022). https://sahistory.org.za/article/short-history-eskom-part-2-2001-2022 Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. The National Archives. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100407172811/https:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm Weaver, S., Lötjönen, S., & Ollikainen, M. (2019, May 15). Overview of National Climate Change Advisory Councils. HELDA: University of Helsinki Open Repository. https://ilmastopaneeli.fi/hallinta/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Overview-of-national-CCCs.pdf Wentz, J. A., & Gerrard, M. B. (2019, June). Persistent Regulations: A Detailed Assessment of the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Repeal Federal Climate Regulations. Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4044&context=faculty_scholarship Willbanks, D. (2025, April 30). 100 Days of Trump 2.0: Silencing Science [Again]. Climate Law: A Sabin Center Blog. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/04/30/100-days-of-trump-2-0-silencing-science-again/ 其他外文文獻 內閣官房（無日期）。GX実行会議の開催について。2026年2月1日，取自 https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/gx_jikkou_kaigi/index.html | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101611 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 自從英國於2008年設立氣候變遷委員會後，有許多國家效仿其先例，紛紛設立氣候委員會，而台灣也不例外。新任總統賴清德甫上任，就於總統府下設立以促進社會溝通為目的的氣候變遷對策委員會。然而這樣看似有利於氣候治理的舉措，卻被質疑實際上是為了擴張總統權力。為了檢視這個新的氣候變遷對策委員會究竟適不適合台灣目前的氣候治理現況，本論文將法律分析結合公共行政學、科技與社會研究，以及風險社會學等不同學門，跨領域地從民主制度下氣候變遷的治理困境出發，爬梳氣候委員會此一組織形態的制度目的。並將之與傳統環境管制領域中的科學諮詢委員會作對照，論證氣候委員會的制度核心在於將科學與政治進行重新劃界，並作為中介機構，將專業知識轉化為政策建議。
本論文接下來繼續梳理氣候委員會的類型，認為氣候委員會應以專家諮詢型與公眾諮詢型為分類，並分別以英國氣候變遷委員會與南非總統氣候委員會為例，以制度分析與脈絡分析的研究方法，說明不同的社會脈絡如何產生不同的氣候委員會設計。接下來則將視角轉回台灣，從歷史脈絡、立法歷程與政治現況，說明氣候變遷對策委員會以公眾參與作為制度基礎並無問題。然而在具體制度設計與實際運作上，卻受限於政治現實，呈現出名不符實、定位不明與疊床架屋的缺陷。因此，本論文針對這三個缺陷，最後提出強化制度整合的短期建議，以及強化專業諮詢與獨立性的長期建議。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Since the establishment of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, many countries have adopted similar frameworks, and Taiwan is no exception. President Lai Ching-Te established the National Climate Change Committee soon after his inauguration. However, this initiative, while seemingly conducive to climate governance, has faced criticism for expanding presidential power. To assess the new committee’s suitability for Taiwan, this thesis adopts an interdisciplinary approach to examine the institutional purpose of climate committees amid democratic governance dilemmas. By contrasting these entities with traditional scientific advisory bodies, this thesis argues that climate committees function as intermediaries that re-demarcate the boundary between science and politics, transforming expertise into policy recommendations.
This thesis further categorizes these bodies into “expert-advisory” and “public-consultative” models, and uses the UK and South African examples to illustrate how social contexts dictate institutional design. Shifting the focus back to Taiwan, based on the historical context, legislative process, and current political climate, this thesis argues that the establishment of the National Climate Change Committee is theoretically based. However, the political constraints have resulted in institutional redundancy, ambiguous positioning, and a lack of substantive authority. Consequently, the thesis offers a short-term suggestion for institutional integration and long-term strategies to strengthen professional consultation and institutional independence. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-02-11T16:45:43Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-02-11T16:45:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 I
摘要 V ABSTRACT VI 簡目 VII 詳目 IX 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 研究方法與研究架構 5 第三節 研究範圍與研究限制 7 第二章 氣候委員會的制度必要性 10 第一節 氣候變遷的決策風險 11 第一項 氣候科學研究的特性與其對決策的影響 12 第一款 跨領域複雜性 12 第二款 長期性 13 第三款 不確定性 14 第四款 價值導向性 15 第二項 氣候科學作為管制科學與其政治化 17 第二節 民主制度下氣候治理的決策困境 19 第一項 公眾關注偏誤 19 第二項 利益結構扭曲 21 第三項 時間不一致性 24 第一款 政策的反覆變動 24 第二款 科學運用的反覆變動 26 第一目 2001年至2009年：George W. Bush政府 26 第二目 2009年至2017年：Barack Obama政府 27 第三目 2017年至2021年：第一次Donald Trump政府 28 第四目 2021年至今：Joseph Biden政府與第二次Trump政府 29 第三節 小結：獨立氣候委員會作為治理困境的制度因應 31 第三章 氣候委員會的制度設計 33 第一節 對傳統環境管制中科學諮詢委員會的反思 33 第一項 專業知識壟斷 33 第二項 人事運作干預 35 第三項 政治責任模糊 37 第四項 氣候委員會作為中介機構 38 第二節 氣候委員會的類型與功能 40 第三節 專家諮詢型：以英國氣候變遷委員會為例 43 第一項 背景脈絡 43 第二項 制度設計 46 第一款 獨立性 46 第二款 職權 48 第三項 對氣候政策的影響 50 第四節 公眾諮詢型：以南非總統氣候委員會為例 52 第一項 背景脈絡 52 第二項 制度設計 56 第一款 獨立性 56 第二款 職權 58 第三項 對氣候政策的影響 58 第五節 小結 60 第四章 檢視氣候對策委員會 62 第一節 台灣是否需要公眾諮詢型氣候委員會？ 62 第一項 發展型國家的治理困境 62 第二項 台灣環境管制與氣候治理的立法歷程 64 第一款 傳統環境管制立法 64 第二款 從溫室氣體減量管理法到氣候變遷因應法 65 第三項 台灣能源政治的社會分歧 67 第一款 再生能源 67 第二款 核能再起 68 第四項 公眾諮詢型氣候委員會具有制度正當性 70 第二節 氣候對策委員會的設計與運作是否適當？ 71 第一項 名不符實的運作現場 72 第二項 模糊不清的組織定位 74 第一款 氣候對策委員會作為總統府委員會的制度邏輯 74 第二款 氣候對策委員會作為總統府委員會的正當性 75 第三項 疊床架屋的政策協調 76 第三節 氣候對策委員會的制度化 78 第一項 強化制度整合 78 第二項 強化專業諮詢 80 第三項 強化獨立性 81 第四節 小結 83 第五章 結論 85 參考文獻 87 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 國家氣候變遷對策委員會 | - |
| dc.subject | 氣候委員會 | - |
| dc.subject | 氣候治理 | - |
| dc.subject | 管制科學 | - |
| dc.subject | 科學諮詢委員會 | - |
| dc.subject | National Climate Change Committee | - |
| dc.subject | Climate Committee | - |
| dc.subject | Climate Governance | - |
| dc.subject | Regulatory Science | - |
| dc.subject | Scientific Advisory Body | - |
| dc.title | 科學知識與社會價值的共存：定位台灣國家氣候變遷對策委員會 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Coexistence of Scientific Knowledge and Social Values: Positioning Taiwan’s National Climate Change Committee | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林春元;陳仲嶙 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chun-Yuan Lin;Chung-Lin Chen | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 國家氣候變遷對策委員會,氣候委員會氣候治理管制科學科學諮詢委員會 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | National Climate Change Committee,Climate CommitteeClimate GovernanceRegulatory ScienceScientific Advisory Body | en |
| dc.relation.page | 111 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600637 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-02-08 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2026-02-12 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 法律學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf | 2.84 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。