The Choice of 'Climate Crisis Public Deliberation': The National Assembly Must Not Turn Away [Why This Matters]

A citizen representative shares her experience participating in a public hearing on climate crisis response, an initiative spurred by a constitutional court ruling in 2020 that found the Carbon Neutrality Act unconstitutional. The process, which involved citizens selected through surveys and recommendations, aimed to gather public opinion on crucial climate policies after the National Assembly's prolonged delay in revising the law.

During the hearing, participants engaged in extensive discussions and self-study, with nearly 80% concluding that 'early reduction' of emissions was essential for both future generations and the present. This conclusion was reached despite some initial concerns about the costs and the necessity of immediate action versus relying on future technological advancements.

However, the representative expresses deep disappointment with recent parliamentary decisions. The Climate Special Committee's legislative subcommittee opted for a 'range-based' reduction path, setting a lower bound of 53% and an upper bound of 61% for early reduction, a decision seen as undermining the consensus reached during the public hearing. This outcome suggests that the National Assembly may be prioritizing less ambitious measures over the clear public mandate for more aggressive climate action.

The author criticizes this decision as a failure to heed the "clear public will" and an indication of lingering self-interest and complacency regarding the climate crisis. She emphasizes that the climate crisis is not just a future problem or a past mistake but a present reality affecting everyone through extreme weather events. The solution, she argues, lies in the National Assembly decisively implementing the 'early reduction' principle, as advocated by the public consultation, and not shying away from the necessary legislative reforms.