A public debate committee tasked with establishing a medium-term pathway for reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has come under fire for suggesting a 'convex reduction path' that transfers the burden of emissions cuts to future generations. This proposal has sparked calls for the suspension of the public discussion process, with critics like the Climate Crisis Emergency Action and the Korean Federation for Environmental Movements arguing that it ignores a Constitutional Court ruling. The committee's chairman, Lee Chang-hoon, has responded by promising to clarify potential constitutional concerns during the deliberation process,

The Constitutional Court previously ruled on the Carbon Neutral Basic Act, indicating that the National Assembly must revise the law to include a defined greenhouse gas reduction pathway for 2031 to 2049. The court stipulated that any emissions reduction targets must be based on scientific facts and international standards while ensuring that excessive burdens are not pushed onto future generations. The current public debate is a procedural step in complying with this court ruling, but the criticism centers around the potential pitfalls of the convex reduction path that runs contrary to the objectives of both the Constitutional Court and international agreements like the Paris Accord,

Included in the debate options presented to a citizen representative group were alternatives such as an 'inward path' which advocates for initial greater reductions, a 'linear path' that proposes uniform reductions, and the controversial 'convex path'. Critics warn that endorsing the convex path would not only contradict the Constitutional Court’s mandates but also violate the principles of progress outlined in international climate agreements. They argue that this approach ultimately undermines attempts to establish an effective framework for tackling climate change in South Korea,