탄소중립법 국회 통과…환경단체 “미래세대에 부담 떠넘기는 눈속임·기만”

South Korea's Carbon Neutrality Basic Law, which sets specific carbon reduction targets for 2031-2049, has passed through the National Assembly. The revised law, labeled as a "linear reduction" pathway, was criticized for potentially shifting the burden of carbon reduction onto future generations. On May 26th, the Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Environment announced that the revised law had been passed by the National Assembly.

The updated law sets carbon reduction targets of 53-61% by 2035 (compared to 2018 levels) and 69-80% by 2040 (by June 30th, 2040) and 84-90% by 2045 (by June 30th, 2045). The lower limit of the reduction range is based on the "linear reduction" pathway, while the upper limit is set at the lower emissions level in order to reduce the burden on future generations, known as the "early reduction" pathway.

However, the regulation of carbon emission trading only applies to the lower limit, meaning that the standard for substantial reduction efforts is based on the linear reduction pathway. This pathway is more burdensome for future generations than the early reduction pathway. The Carbon Neutrality Basic Law set a goal of "carbon neutrality by 2050," but failed to establish intermediate targets for achieving this goal, leading to a constitutional invalidity decision by the Constitutional Court in August 2024.

The Court ruled that while it had upheld a 40% carbon reduction target for 2030, it had not set quantitative targets for the period of 2031-2049, thus failing to sufficiently protect citizens' environmental rights. The Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Environment stated that the passed Carbon Neutrality Basic Law revision will provide a foundation for achieving the national carbon reduction targets (NDC) and supporting the response to the climate crisis, which is a national issue.

However, various citizens' and social organizations strongly opposed the law. The "Climate Emergency Emergency Action" issued a statement criticizing the law, calling it a "mirage and deception" as it only sets the upper limit as an upper limit and the lower limit as the burden to be passed on to future generations, thus failing to acknowledge the constitutional judgment and public opinion.

They emphasized that the legislative and executive branches of the government must take responsibility for ignoring the judgment of the Climate Constitutional Court and the public's concerns.