Partial Constitutional Incompatibility of the Carbon Neutrality Act, Announcement of Stringent Climate Legislation for 2026

Constitutional Court Rules Partial Unconstitutionality of Carbon Neutrality Basic Act
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Must Be Established After 2031
Democrats to Review Climate Strengthening Measures Including Dismissed Contents

On the 29th, when the Constitutional Court ruled that the government's response to the climate crisis could infringe on the basic rights of the people, the legal team and plaintiffs held a press conference in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the government's inadequate response to the climate crisis infringes upon the fundamental rights of future generations. The Court decided that the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act, which does not set greenhouse gas reduction targets beyond 2031, is unconstitutional. Although the petition was dismissed, the method of calculating reduction amounts was also controversial, suggesting the possibility of future amendments. After the February 2026 deadline set by the Court, a more strengthened climate law is expected to emerge.

On the 29th, the Constitutional Court issued a unanimous decision of unconstitutionality regarding Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the "Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Climate Crisis Response" (Carbon Neutrality Framework Act). Article 8, Paragraph 1 specifies that "greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 35% by 2030 compared to 2018." The government set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% according to this provision but did not set any targets thereafter. Carbon neutrality is based on the year 2050, but there are no reduction targets for the period from 2031 to 2049.

The Court judged that the absence of reduction targets after 2031 "violates the environmental rights of the petitioners." The basis for this is the "principle of minimum protection" and the "principle of legal reservation." The principle of minimum protection means that the state must take at least minimal protective measures to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights, and the principle of legal reservation requires that administrative actions must have a legal basis. The Court's judgment is that the government violated its "duty to protect fundamental rights" by having no targets despite the need to make minimum efforts to protect citizens from the climate crisis.

The method of calculating greenhouse gas reduction amounts also came under scrutiny. According to the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act, the 2018 emissions are calculated as "total emissions," while the 2030 target is calculated as "net emissions." If the same standard were applied, the government would fail to achieve the 40% reduction it proposed. Among the nine Constitutional Court justices, five pointed out that the differing calculation methods clearly mean that actual greenhouse gas reductions cannot be achieved. However, since six justices' agreement is required for the constitutional complaint to be accepted, it was dismissed by a margin of one vote.

Following the Court's decision, the government and the National Assembly must establish carbon reduction targets for 2031 to 2049 by the end of February 2026. The current net emissions target for 2030 is 436.6 million tCO2e. According to the Paris Agreement, this figure must be at least zero by 2050. To achieve this, the government must devise plans for projected greenhouse gas emissions 26 years from now, reduction rates, and carbon absorption and removal. In particular, how to adjust the industrial sector, which accounts for the largest share of emissions at 230.7 million tCO2e in 2030, will be a key issue.

Although the petition was dismissed, since many justices pointed out issues, the National Assembly may face criticism regarding the method of calculating greenhouse gas reductions. In this case, the reduction amount required to be achieved by 2030 would also increase immediately. If the calculation method is unified to net emissions, the actual reduction rate would decrease from 40% to 36.4%, and net emissions reduction would be only 29.6%. Raising the reduction targets further is expected to significantly impact the government's energy transition speed and the industrial sector.

The government and the National Assembly have expressed their intention to begin the amendment process. The Ministry of Environment stated, "We respect the Constitutional Court's decision and plan to faithfully implement follow-up measures." The Democratic Party's climate action parliamentary group "Emergency" emphasized, "We will immediately begin reviewing the amendment bill," adding, "We will broadly examine ways to further strengthen South Korea's response to the climate crisis, including not only the provisions declared unconstitutional but also the dismissed content."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.