A climate group has criticized the ongoing discussions regarding the inclusion of a 'convex reduction path' in the national carbon neutrality law reform process, arguing it shifts reduction burdens to the future.
In the ongoing public consultation process for revising South Korea's Carbon Neutrality Basic Law, debates have emerged over the proposal of a 'convex reduction path' which would defer significant carbon reduction obligations to the future. This pathway has sparked criticism for violating a previous Constitutional Court ruling that determined such a method unconstitutionally burdens future generations with climate responsibilities. The climate advocacy group, Emergency Action, held a press conference, urging the National Assembly to cease efforts to incorporate this convex option into the discussion, arguing that a constitutional violation should not be an acceptable choice.
The National Assembly's Climate Crisis Special Committee recently convened a workshop with 30 members of a discussion group which proposed three key issues for public discussion: the targets for greenhouse gas reductions, timing for reductions, and implementation methods. However, while the discussion group agreed to exclude the convex path — which allows for minimal current reductions and significant future reductions — the consultation committee seems intent on reintroducing it, raising concerns over prioritizing industrial sector preferences over legal and constitutional requirements. Critics argue that the convex path aligns more with corporate interests rather than with the constitutional mandate for equitable burdens across generations.
The Constitutional Court, in a decision from August 2024, had previously ruled that failing to establish long-term carbon reduction targets in the Carbon Neutrality Basic Law imposed undue burdens on future generations, rendering the law unconstitutional. The court provided guidelines for setting these targets based on scientific facts, international standards, and fair contributions to global reduction efforts. Emergency Action asserts that the convex path violates all three stipulated criteria and must therefore be eliminated as an option for the public to consider in the ongoing discussions about national climate policy.
