本研究透過美國聯邦政府利率，定義景氣循環之繁榮、平穩及衰退。並透過景氣循環之結果，分析油輪、貨櫃船與散裝船之海運費率。接著，結合碳排限額和碳交易之概念，提出考慮景氣循環與船舶是否依據EEDI情境之模型，來優化海運碳權分配之問題，進而建議決策者最小化免費碳權分配，與海運公司最小化其成本效益比率之目標。結果顯示，海運費率在景氣繁榮下較高。在不同景氣下，船舶高航速行駛，燃油成本對整體營收之占比較高；若比較不同景氣，船舶於景氣衰退下，燃油成本對整體營收之占比較高。在不同碳交易價格方面，船舶於高碳交易價格，其碳排成本對整體營收之占比亦較高；若比較不同景氣，在衰退景氣下，無論是碳交易價格之高低，海運公司碳排成本對整體營收之占比皆較低。在碳權分配方面，在船舶依據EEDI與無依據EEDI之兩種情境，海運部門在景氣繁榮環境中，因其排放量遠高於碳排限額，故須購買較多碳權，唯在景氣衰退之環境下，有多餘碳權可出售。最後，在成本效益分析方面，海運公司於景氣繁榮下，成本效益比率較低，表示其成本佔整體營收較低；於景氣衰退下，其成本效益比率較高。若比較船舶依據EEDI與無依據EEDI兩種情境中，海運公司於前者情境中，可有效降低其成本。因此，本研究建議海運公司於景氣衰退之環境下，可以透過降低船速，減少其成本；此外，海運公司使用EEDI所規範之船舶，亦能達到降低船舶排放，與減少成本之功效。

This study utilizes the Federal Fund Rate to identify three business cycles in the field of international shipping: prosperous, steady, and sluggish. Then by combining the data regarding emission caps and the trade mechanisms, this study proposes models which consider two different scenarios for shipping vessels depending on whether they are in keeping with the EEDI or not during the different business cycles based on carbon allowance allocation problems (CAAP) in the shipping sector. For the CAAP, the critical issues for the decision maker is to decide the free carbon allowance level α to achieve the emission target set by the Paris Agreement. This is critical for shipping companies which want to follow the allocated free carbon allowance to minimize their cost-benefit ratio (CBR). The results show that the shipping freight rates during prosperous business cycles are higher. In addition, vessels which travel at higher speeds use more of their total profits for fuel costs. When comparing during the different business cycles, the proportion spent on shipping is higher in the sluggish business cycles. When comparing different carbon trading prices, vessels travel at higher trading prices the proportion of the emission costs of the total profit is higher. When comparing shipping costs during the different business cycles, the proportion spent by shipping companies during the sluggish business cycles is higher. Regarding carbon allowance allocation, for vessels keeping within the EEDI scenarios and for those without, the shipping companies need to buy more carbon allowance in the prosperous business cycle because vessels emit more CO2, while in the sluggish business cycle the shipping companies can sell their allowances. Finally, for the cost-benefit analysis, during the prosperous business cycle, the shipping companies’ cost-benefit ratio (CBR) is lower, indicating their expenditures as a percentage of total profits are lower. While in the sluggish business cycle, their CBR is higher. When comparing two scenarios in which companies follow or do not follow the EEDI, it was found that shipping companies can save more costs in the former scenario. Therefore, this study suggests that in the sluggish business cycles, shipping companies can cut cost by reducing vessel speeds. In addition, if shipping companies deploy the vessels in keeping with the EEDI, they can reduce both vessel emissions and operation cost.

Cariou, P. (2011). Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 260-264.
CMA CGM. (2017). OCEAN ALLIANCE. Retrieved Octorber 14, 2017 from https://www.cma-cgm.com/static/Communication/Attachments/MAG%2057%20final_UK_BD_25-01-17.pdf
Corbett, J. J., Wang, H., & Winebrake, J. J. (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(8), 593-598.
COSCO. (2017). Servicios y Schedules. Retrieved Octorber 13, 2017 from https://coscospain.com/schedules/
Dai, L., Hu, H., & Zhang, D. (2015). An empirical analysis of freight rate and vessel price volatility transmission in global dry bulk shipping market. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 2(5), 353-361.
Dessens, O., Anger, A., Barker, T., & Pyle, J. (2014). Effects of decarbonising international shipping and aviation on climate mitigation and air pollution. Environmental Science & Policy, 44, 1-10.
Endresen, Ø., Sørgård, E., Behrens, H. L., Brett, P. O., & Isaksen, I. S. (2007). A historical reconstruction of ships' fuel consumption and emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D12).
Endresen, Ø., Sørgård, E., Sundet, J. K., Dalsøren, S. B., Isaksen, I. S. A., Berglen, T. F., & Gravir, G. (2003). Emission from international sea transportation and environmental impact. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 108(D17),
European Commission. (2017). The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Retrieved Novermber 20, 2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
European Parliament. (2017). Key Issues at Stake at the 71st Session of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 71) Retrieved Novermber 30, 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/602062/IPOL_BRI(2017)602062_EN.pdf
Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game Theory (Vol. 1): The MIT Press.
Heilpern, S. (1992). The expected value of a fuzzy number. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 47(1), 81-86.
Hermeling, C., Klement, J. H., Koesler, S., Köhler, J., & Klement, D. (2015). Sailing into a dilemma: An economic and legal analysis of an EU trading scheme for maritime emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 34-53.
ICCT. (2017). GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM GLOBAL SHIPPING, 2013–2015. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf
IMO. (2011). Market-Based Measures. Retrieved Octorber 11, 2017 from http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/market-based-measures.aspx
IMO. (2015). Reduction of GHG emissions from ships - Third IMO GHG Study 2014. Retrieved Octorber 13, 2017 from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/Third%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Study/GHG3%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Report.pdf
Kavussanos, M. G., & Alizadeh-M, A. H. (2001). Seasonality patterns in dry bulk shipping spot and time charter freight rates. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 37(6), 443-467.
Koesler, S., Achtnicht, M., & Köhler, J. (2015). Course set for a cap? A case study among ship operators on a maritime ETS. Transport Policy, 37, 20-30.
Lorentzen & Stemoco. (2015). Assessing the impact of new Valemaxes. Retrieved November 4, 2017 from http://www.lorstem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Flash-Report-Valemax.pdf
MacroMocro (2018), China Containerized Freight Index (CCFI). Retrieved November 4, 2017 from https://www.macromicro.me/charts/947/commodity-ccfi
MAN Diesel & Turbo. (2014). Propulsion of 200,000-210,000 dwt Large Capesize Bulk Carrier. Retrieved November 6, 2017 from http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-of-200000-210000-dt-large-capesize-bulk-carrier.pdf?sfvrsn=14
Marine insight. (2017). 10 World’s Biggest Container Ships in 2017. Retrieved November 5, 2017 from https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/10-worlds-biggest-container-ships-2017/
Marine Traffic. (2017). CMA CGM JULES VERNE. Retrieved Octorber 4, 2017 from http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:180578/mmsi:228032900/imo:9454450/vessel:CMA_CGM_JULES_VERNE
MARKETS INCIDER. (2018). CO2 EUROPEAN EMISSION ALLOWANCES IN EUR - HISTORICAL PRICES. Retrieved May 18, 2018 from http://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/historical-prices/co2-emissionsrechte/euro/1.1.2004_3.3.2018
NHH. (2014). Analysis of the economics of Valemax vessels. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/275766/Masterthesis.pdf?sequence=1
NHH. (2013). The VLCC Tanker Market: the present, past and future. Retrieved November 4, 2017 from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/169875/Furset_og_Hordnes_2013.pdf?sequence=1
OCED INSIGHT. (2016). Carbon emissions all at sea: why was shipping left out of the Paris Climate Agreement? Retrieved May 4, 2018 from http://oecdinsights.org/2016/05/04/carbon-emissions-all-at-sea-why-was-shipping-left-out-of-the-paris-climate-agreement/
Ports.com. (2017). Sea route & distance. Retrieved November 16, 2017 from http://ports.com/sea-route/
Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2009). CO2 emission statistics for the world commercial fleet. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 8(1), 1-25.
Qiu, R., Xu, J., & Zeng, Z. (2017). Carbon emission allowance allocation with a mixed mechanism in air passenger transport. Journal of Environmental Management, 200, 204-216.
Shi, X., Zhang, Y., & Voss, S. (2013). Actions applied by Chinese shipping companies under greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 5(4-5), 463-484.
Slack, B., & Gouvernal, E. (2011). Container freight rates and the role of surcharges. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1482-1489.
Stopford, M. (2013). Maritime economics: Routledge.
Tankers International. (2017). Who imports oil? Retrieved November 16, 2017 from http://www.tankersinternational.com/Education-Trading.php
Tsouknidis, D. A. (2016). Dynamic volatility spillovers across shipping freight markets. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 91, 90-111.
UNCTAD. (2017). Review of Maritime Transport 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2017 from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2017_en.pdf
Wahl, M. E. B., & Kristoffersen, E. (2012). Speed optimization for very large crude carriers (VLCCs): potential savings and effects of slow steaming.
Wang, K., Fu, X., & Luo, M. (2015). Modeling the impacts of alternative emission trading schemes on international shipping. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 35-49.
Word Bank. (2017). GDP (current US$). Retrieved April 13, 2018 from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
Xu, J., Qiu, R., & Lv, C. (2016). Carbon emission allowance allocation with cap and trade mechanism in air passenger transport. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 308-320.
Zhu, M., Yuen, K. F., Ge., J. W., & Li, K. X. (2018). Impact of maritime emissions trading system on fleet deployment and mitigation of CO2 emission. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 62, 474-488.