Assembly passes carbon neutrality bill with linear reduction path, easing near-term burden on government

The National Assembly's Special Committee on Climate Crisis passes an amendment to the Carbon Neutrality Basic Law on Thursday by bipartisan agreement, setting targets to cut national greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90 percent from 2018 levels by 2045. [National Assembly TV]

The National Assembly's Special Committee on Climate Crisis passed an amendment to the Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Basic Law on Thursday. The passage drew immediate criticism from some lawmakers and civic groups, who argued the bill neither reflects the intent of the Constitutional Court's ruling in a climate lawsuit nor the outcome of a public deliberation process.

The amendment sets upper and lower bounds for medium- and long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets from 2031 to 2049 in five-year intervals. A linear reduction path — under which emissions are cut at a steady pace each year — was written into the bill.

The targets, to be set by presidential decree, call for reductions of 53 to 61 percent from 2018 emission levels by 2035, 69 to 80 percent by 2040, and 84 to 90 percent by 2045.

Seo Wang-jin, a lawmaker of the Rebuilding Korea Party, opposed the bill, saying the medium- and long-term greenhouse gas reduction path approved by the subcommittee "does not correspond at all to the responsibilities Korea must bear, nor to the rights future generations are entitled to enjoy." He added that it "failed to reflect either the Constitutional Court's ruling of unconstitutionality or the results of the public deliberation."

Jung Hye-kyung of the Progressive Party also voted against the bill. "This proposal runs entirely counter to the urgency of the climate crisis," she said. "It is a deceptive plan that is lukewarm on carbon reduction and uses a range format to mislead the public."

Lee So-young of the Democratic Party of Korea acknowledged the significance of the bipartisan agreement but abstained, saying she had "doubts about whether the agreed content fully aligns with the intent of the Constitutional Court's ruling."

Kim So-hee of the People Power Party said she was not satisfied with the agreed bill but voted in favor, citing the broader interest. "I judged it very important to look after domestic competitiveness so as not to pass the burden on to future generations," she said. "I hope people will recognize the significance of including provisions for government administrative and fiscal support to help industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions through technology development."

Participants perform at a press conference held by Climate Crisis Action at Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul on July 16, calling for greenhouse gas reduction targets to be enshrined in law. The event marked Constitution Day and urged revision of the Carbon Neutrality Basic Law in line with the Constitutional Court's ruling. [Yonhap]

Despite the bipartisan form of the agreement, critics say the amendment effectively runs counter to the Constitutional Court's ruling by setting the lower bound of the reduction range along a linear path — pushing the heavier burden of cuts into the future.

The Constitutional Court ruled in August 2024 that a provision of the Carbon Neutrality Basic Law was unconstitutional — the first such climate-related ruling in Asia. The court found that while the law set a 2050 carbon neutrality goal, its failure to specify concrete reduction targets for the period from 2031 to 2049 violated future generations' environmental rights by imposing an excessive burden on them.

In response, the government proposed reduction targets with upper and lower bounds set in five-year increments.

The lower bound follows a linear reduction path, while the upper bound is based on an "early reduction" path — one that front-loads emissions cuts to reduce the burden on future generations.

However, because regulations such as the emissions trading scheme apply only to the lower bound, the effective baseline for mandatory reductions is the linear path.

Achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 via a linear path means only a small fraction of total emissions needs to be cut in the early years, while the burden grows sharply over time — requiring reductions approaching 100 percent of annual emissions in later decades.

The amendment explicitly states that regulatory policies, including the emissions trading scheme, are pegged to the lower bound.

Greenhouse gas reduction pathways: linear (dotted line), concave, and convex. [Sciengist]

The results of the public deliberation process have in effect been rendered meaningless.

A citizen panel gave overwhelming support — 77.9 percent — to a front-loaded, concave reduction path, calling for deep cuts now rather than deferring the burden to future generations.

The climate committee's amendment did exclude the back-loaded convex path, which would have shifted the heaviest cuts to later years. But by adopting the linear path as the lower bound, the committee effectively ignored the outcome of its own public deliberation process, sidelining a democratic procedure it had itself organized.

Setting lower greenhouse gas reduction targets eases the near-term burden on the government and industry, but the cost will ultimately fall on future generations — a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

That is why the government, having chosen compromise, should heed the growing calls from environmental groups and some opposition lawmakers to restart work on revising the Carbon Neutrality Basic Law in a way that truly reflects both the intent of the Constitutional Court's ruling and the outcome of the public deliberation.

Sejong Backbriefing is a series by The Herald Business's Sejong-based correspondent covering informal policy briefings, the meaning behind policy decisions, and behind-the-scenes stories from the government district. The column aims to deepen readers' understanding of policy while sharing the lighter side of life among civil servants.

thlee@heraldcorp.com