The Constitutional Court’s ruling on the ‘climate lawsuit’ has made it clear that the government’s inadequate response to the climate crisis is violating the environmental rights of future generations. Beyond this abstract declaration, what will this decision change?
The only thing that the Constitutional Court directly demanded be changed is Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the “Carbon Neutral Basic Act,” which stipulates that “the government shall reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by more than 35% by 2030 compared to 2018 levels.” The idea is that rather than presenting just the reduction amount by 2030, which is an “interim goal,” the court should quantitatively present reduction targets for 2031 to 2049, before 2050, to achieve carbon neutrality (zero emissions). Some have evaluated this as a “half-victory” because the request to change the reduction target by 2030 (stipulated as 40% in the enforcement decree), which has been evaluated as “insufficient,” was not accepted. However, establishing a mid to long-term implementation plan under a quantitative goal by 2050 may lead to an overall strengthening of climate policy.
Countries that have joined the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change must submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) every five years. There have been criticisms that the lack of long-term goals will push the burden to the future and set conservative goals each time. If the target is set for 2050 and then distributed in reverse, it will be difficult to postpone the reduction amount. In the case of Germany, after the climate lawsuit, they set long-term goals of reducing emissions by 88% by 2040 compared to 1990, achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, and entering carbon minus by 2050, and presented the path to that goal in the form of detailed five-year goals.
In the case of our country, attention is focused on whether the reduction target for 2035, which will be announced next year, will be larger than the level discussed so far. It is also a key issue whether this will be presented together with the 2050 target or separately. On the 30th, an official from the Ministry of Environment told Hankyoreh, “It is still uncertain whether the 2050 reduction target will be included in the law when submitting the 2035 plan to the UN, or whether it will be presented separately in the year after next (when the Constitutional Court sets the deadline for the revision of the law).”
The annual greenhouse gas reduction target of the ‘1st National Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Basic Plan’ was announced by the Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Committee in March of last year. The Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Committee plans to gradually reduce emissions by an annual average of 1.99% during the Yoon Seok-your administration from 2023 to 2027, and then rapidly increase the reduction to an annual average of 9.29% for the three years after 2027. In effect, 75% of the total amount to be reduced by 2030 has been postponed to the next government.
The annual greenhouse gas reduction target of the ‘1st National Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Basic Plan’ was announced by the Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Committee in March of last year. The Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Committee plans to gradually reduce emissions by an annual average of 1.99% during the Yoon SSeok-youradministration from 2023 to 2027, and then rapidly increase the reduction to an annual average of 9.29% for the three years after 2027. In effect, 75% of the total amount to be reduced by 2030 has been postponed to the next government.
If the goal of a 40% reduction by 2030 is left as is, the remaining 60% must be reduced over the next 20 years. Since the remaining emissions after the 2030 reduction target are 436.6 million tons, a plan must be drawn up to reduce 110 million tons every five years starting in 2031. This is a huge number, considering that the Yoon Seok-yeol government’s target reduction for the five years from 2023 to 2027 was only 5 million tons. Rapidly reducing emissions in the early stages through large-scale structural reform is also a key strategy for achieving carbon neutrality. Therefore, some argue that the government needs to actively revise upward the reduction target by 2030 as well. Attorney Lee Byeong-ju, a member of the climate lawsuit joint representative team, said, “The 2030 emission target must be raised to at least 50%, and a scientific plan must be established for each five years thereafter.”
However, the Ministry of Environment told the Hankyoreh that it would “not revise the target separately until 2030.” An official from the Ministry of Environment said, “The 2030 reduction target was not subject to the Constitutional Court’s decision. We plan to draw up a plan for 2035 while considering sector-by-sector and year-by-year implementation plans.”
There is also interest in whether the ‘National Carbon Neutrality Green Growth Basic Plan’ to achieve the reduction target will be strengthened compared to the existing one. This is because it includes climate policies that citizens can feel. Although the constitutionality decision was made due to a lack of quorum, five Constitutional Court judges found that the reduction targets by sector and year contained in the plan were insufficient.
After winning the world’s first climate lawsuit, the Netherlands enacted a law to close all thermal power plants, including new coal-fired power plants, by 2030, as well as to stop gas-fired heating and expand solar subsidies. It also limited the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles to 2030, bringing forward the “policy clock.” In Korea, according to the Basic Plan for Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth, carbon emissions in the energy sector amount to 223 million tons, and in the transportation sector, 93 million tons, accounting for half of total emissions. However, there is only a plan to phase out coal-fired power plants after their design life (30 years), while there are no specific restrictions on internal combustion engine vehicles. President Yoon Seok-yeol pledged to consider “suspending new registrations of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035” as part of his presidential campaign, but after his election, the plan was shelved to the extent of “expanding zero-emission vehicles.”
