On March 19, the National Assembly's Special Committee on Climate Crisis revealed that a deliberative citizen representative group would discuss key issues related to climate crisis response, including a controversial option termed the 'bulged reduction path.' This path proposes to shift the burden of greenhouse gas reductions to the future, which has raised significant legal and ethical concerns about its implications for environmental policy. Critics have pointed out that this approach contradicts the principles set forth in the Paris Agreement and the Constitutional Court's standards that demand reliance on scientific facts and international agreements.

The deliberative process will involve 340 citizen representatives who will decide on three main questions regarding South Korea's reduction targets and the pathways to achieve them. Notably, under the bulged reduction path, emissions would be reduced less in the early years, with expectations of higher reductions in the latter years, which many argue is not in line with the country's previously set targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 53% to 61% by 2035 based on 2018 levels. Legal experts warn that this method undermines the 'progress principle' established in the Paris Agreement, which is designed to prevent backward shifts in emission reduction goals.

The inclusion of the bulged reduction path is controversial and is poised to spark further debate on the legitimacy of the deliberative process itself. Although an official from the National Assembly cited that they would provide clarification soon on why this option was included, the ongoing discussions, alongside public forums slated for late March and early April, indicate that this contentious pathway will be a focal point of national dialogue. Stakeholders are concerned that such options may set a precedent for future environmental legislation and the country's commitment to its climate goals.