Future burden cited as carbon reduction bill passes committee

A bill to amend South Korea's Carbon Neutrality Basic Law, which establishes the nation's greenhouse gas reduction trajectory beyond 2031, has cleared a key hurdle and is heading to the National Assembly's plenary session. The amendment, however, has drawn criticism for effectively codifying a "linear reduction" path, a method that opponents argue unfairly burdens future generations.

The National Assembly's Special Committee on Climate Crisis approved the amendment on the 13th with 11 votes in favor, 2 against, and 2 abstentions. The bill now awaits a final vote in the plenary session. Representatives Seo Wang-jin of the Labor Party and Jeong Hye-gyeong of the Progressive Party voted against it, while Lee So-young of the Democratic Party and Cho Ji-yeon of the People Power Party abstained.

“

The linear reduction path is not enough to respond to the climate crisis, yet the committee has approved an amendment that violates the constitution.

This legislative move is a response to a Constitutional Court ruling in March, which found the existing Carbon Neutrality Basic Law unconstitutional for failing to set national greenhouse gas reduction targets between 2031 and 2049. The court mandated that the National Assembly legislate these targets to prevent an excessive burden on future generations.

The approved amendment outlines greenhouse gas reduction targets for the period after 2035, specifying a range rather than a fixed number. For 2035, the target is a 53-61% reduction from 2018 levels; for 2040, it's 69-80%; and for 2045, it's 84-90%. The specific targets within these ranges are to be determined by presidential decree. The lower end of these ranges represents the "linear reduction" path, while the upper end reflects an "early reduction" strategy.

“

The Constitutional Court ruled that not setting national greenhouse gas reduction targets from 2031 to 2049 could place an excessive burden on future generations.

However, regulations like emissions trading are applied only to the lower bound, making the "linear reduction" the de facto standard for compliance. This path places a greater burden on future generations than the "early reduction" approach. This outcome contradicts the results of a citizen deliberation process conducted in March and April, where 77.9% of 300 citizen representatives favored an early reduction strategy, compared to 19.9% who supported linear reduction. A separate group of youth representatives also overwhelmingly favored early reduction (75%).

Climate action group Plan 1.5 criticized the decision, stating, "Despite numerous warnings that the linear reduction path is insufficient to combat the climate crisis, the committee has approved an amendment that violates the constitution." The group urged the National Assembly to rectify the "unconstitutional nature" of the bill during the remaining legislative process. Concurrently, the committee also passed a bill to establish a climate crisis adaptation information management system and support vulnerable populations and regions.

“

77.9% of citizen representatives supported the early reduction path, while only 19.9% supported the linear reduction path.