Korea should not try to compromise carbon neutrality commitment
The Presidential Committee on Carbon Neutrality announced Thursday three options for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. The committee is a public-private joint panel established in May to attain the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. However, the first two of the three options it presented fell short of realizing the goal by the target year, drawing criticism from environmental groups. The third option aims at achieving net-zero emissions but remains insufficient by failing to set a deadline for ending use of thermal power plants. Given the gravity of the climate crisis, the government is still taking too lukewarm a position.
The biggest problem with the committee's draft plan is that it includes two options that cannot meet carbon neutrality. Under the first option, Korea will still be emitting 25.4 million tons in 2050, while the second option will allow the country 18.7 tons of emissions that year. These ideas are not worthy of the panel's name. The committee said the three roadmaps are just rough drafts, and that it will unveil a final plan in October after soliciting public opinions. However, the draft plan itself is completely inadequate and there is not enough time to discuss such a broad and complicated agenda, raising doubts about how to reach a national consensus on the issue.
The panel cannot avoid criticism for failing to include a bold energy shift plan in power generation. If it seeks to maintain power generation from fossil fuels, including coal, it is impossible to accomplish carbon neutrality. Notably, the first option seeks to operate seven new thermal plants, now under construction, until 2050. However, environmentalists have persistently called for scrapping their construction plans and working out a “coal-free roadmap” by 2030.
The carbon neutrality plan is the Korean government's promise to the international community. The country cannot give up its net-zero commitment. Advanced countries are taking drastic action against the climate crisis. It is difficult to understand why the presidential committee, which should play the role of a control tower in achieving carbon neutrality, shows signs of weakness under the pretext of realistic constraint. If its timidity is due to resistance and meddling by the mineral and energy generation industries, political leaders ought to enhance further the committee's status and authority to ensure proper operation.