(Yonhap)

<이미지를 클릭하시면 크게 보실 수 있습니다>

The South Korean government has proposed two alternative plans for the country’s 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) – to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 60 percent or 53 to 60 percent from 2018 levels.

Both options exceed the 48 percent reduction target requested by industry and represent a significant increase from the current goal of a 40 percent cut by 2030 compared to 2018 levels.

While carbon neutrality is clearly an irreversible global trend, concerns are mounting that such an abrupt tightening of the target could pose a serious threat to the sustainability of Korea’s industrial base.

The business community is strongly protesting, calling the new goal “unachievable.”

The country’s key manufacturing sectors directly affected by the NDC – semiconductors, automobiles, petrochemicals, steel, and cement – are already under intense pressure from global competition and decarbonization mandates.

The latest target increase would only deepen that strain.

The semiconductor industry notes that the lack of renewable energy infrastructure makes it impossible to meet the NDC timeline, while automakers say that the government’s 2035 zero-emission vehicle target effectively means a ban on internal combustion engines.

The airline industry also warns that the mandatory introduction of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) starting next year will inevitably drive up ticket prices.

The financial burden of large-scale facility investments and emission credit purchases is also considerable.

For the four major sectors (steel, refining, cement, and petrochemicals), additional costs for purchasing emission credits during the fourth phase of the Emissions Trading Scheme (2026–2030) are estimated to reach 5 trillion won ($3.45 billion).

Such costs could stifle investment in new growth engines and lead to job losses.

Although the government claims it sought a balance among the demands of civil society (65 percent), the international community (61 percent), and industry (48 percent), critics say the policy represents a “reckless acceleration” that ignores industrial realities.

They also argue that the government prioritizes its international reputation over the urgent concerns of domestic businesses.

Greenhouse gas reduction, they stress, must be pursued not as an ideal, but as a goal grounded in practical feasibility.

The government must therefore meticulously design a realistic reduction trajectory that industries can sustain, while simultaneously implementing practical measures such as developing carbon reduction technologies, expanding renewable energy infrastructure, and providing tangible tax and financial support.

Climate action should not be an idealistic slogan but a feasible plan.