Constitutional Court Chief Justice Lee Jong-seok and other constitutional justices are preparing for a ruling at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 29th. /Photo Joint Press Corps
,
, ‘The Constitutional Court ruled on the unconstitutionality of the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act on the 29th, stating that the government’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to combat the climate crisis is insufficient. The court pointed out that the lack of setting long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets until 2049 would impose disadvantages on future generations. As a result, the government must amend the law by February 2026.’,
,
, ‘This lawsuit, known as the first ‘climate lawsuit’ filed in Asia, drew attention. However, the court found the government’s target of reducing greenhouse gases by 40% compared to 2018 levels by 2030 to be constitutionally valid. The sectoral and yearly greenhouse gas reduction targets specified in the ‘Carbon Neutral Green Growth Basic Plan’ were also deemed constitutional. Legal circles evaluated this decision as recommending the government to establish long-term climate measures while considering practical aspects such as the domestic economy and industrial structure.’,
,
, ‘On this day, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled on the unconstitutionality of Article 8(1) of the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act in a constitutional petition filed by a youth climate group and infants, claiming that the government’s failure to properly implement greenhouse gas reduction measures infringed on the right to life, environmental rights, and the pursuit of happiness. The current law stipulates that “greenhouse gases should be reduced by over 40% by 2030 compared to 2018.” The court pointed out that the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act only sets a reduction target until 2030 without providing any quantitative criteria for the 19-year goal up to 2049, which it criticized as placing an undue burden on the future.’,
,
,
At a press conference on climate lawsuits held in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 29th, Han Je-a-yang, a primary school student and petitioner of the constitutional petition, is speaking. /Yonhap News.
,
, ‘The Constitutional Court determined that the government’s failure to establish long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets while aiming for “carbon neutrality” by 2050 to address the climate crisis is unconstitutional. The Carbon Neutrality Basic Act enacted in 2021 and subsequent enforcement decree set the target of reducing greenhouse gases by 40% compared to 2018 by 2030, but did not specify reduction targets for the period thereafter.’,
,
, ‘The court stated, “If necessary and feasible measures are not taken in advance to strengthen reduction targets after 2031, the burden of reducing emissions will inevitably increase, leading to greater difficulties.” It criticized the current law for not having the minimum characteristics required as a protective measure corresponding to the emergency situation of the climate crisis.’,
,
, ‘The court further stated, “There is no effective mechanism to ensure gradual and continuous reduction of greenhouse gases until 2050. This regulatory approach imposes an undue burden on reducing targets in the future, thereby infringing on the environmental rights of the petitioners.”‘,
,
, ‘However, the court determined that the setting of specific reduction targets in the future is within the authority of the National Assembly, and therefore called for a legal revision.’,
,
, ‘On the other hand, the court did not accept the argument from climate groups that the government’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 40% by 2030 did not meet international standards and infringed on citizens’ fundamental rights. The court stated that the 40% reduction target for greenhouse gases is an intermediate goal premised on gradual and continuous reductions until 2050, and does not constitute a basis for imposing burdens or violating fundamental rights such as environmental rights.’,
,
, ‘The court also found it acceptable that specific reduction targets were set in an enforcement decree rather than in the law, stating that such targets should consider socioeconomic policies, diplomatic situations, and other related factors.’,
,
, ‘The ruling was made in favor of the government’s ‘Carbon Neutrality Green Growth Basic Plan,’ which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions annually by sector and year, aiming to reduce emissions to 625.1 million tons this year and 436.6 million tons by 2030.’,
,
, ‘Constitutional Court Chief Justice Lee Jong-seok and Justices Lee Eun-ae, Lee Young-jin, and Kim Hyeong-du stated that this plan constitutes “protective measures in response to the climate crisis,” and that “it is difficult to identify clear discretion violations.” However, Justices Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyeong-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Jung Jeong-mi, and Jeong Hyeong-sik expressed unconstitutional opinions, stating that it is difficult to achieve the ‘40% reduction’ target with the basic plan. As the number of justices who held unconstitutional opinions did not meet the required minimum of 6, the decision was made in favor of constitutionality.’,
,
, ‘The government and industry have argued that given the consideration of Korea’s manufacturing-centered economic structure, the current reduction target places a significant economic burden and that policy discretion is required in climate response. A legal expert said, “The Constitutional Court partially accommodated the voices of the government and industry.”‘,
,
, ‘The ruling came 4 years and 5 months after climate groups filed the unconstitutional lawsuit in March 2020. The Constitutional Court conducted two public hearings in April and May of this year, focusing on the decision. A Constitutional Court official explained that the decision was based on considering whether the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act adequately encapsulated the protection measures required for the climate crisis situation, taking into account scientific facts and international standards.’,
,