Highest Court In South Korea Rules In Favor Of Climate Activists – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

The Constitutional Court of South Korea ruled at the end of August that the country’s climate change law did not protect basic human rights and lacks targets to shield future generations. About 200 plaintiffs, including young climate activists and even some infants, filed petitions with the court beginning in 2020, arguing that the government was violating the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough on climate change.

According to Reuters, South Korea has set a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050, but lowered its near term carbon reduction targets last year while maintaining the long term target. In other words, it kicked the can down the road — a tactic that puts more of the burden of a warming climate on future generations while reducing the need to act on current economic and political leaders. South Korea, of course, is far from alone in that regard.

South Korea Climate Ruling

In a unanimous ruling, the court said South Korea’s carbon neutrality act, enacted in 2010 and revised later to lay out emissions targets by 2030 and the goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050, failed to present “any quantitative levels” for the reductions targets between 2031 and 2049. “Since there is no mechanism that can effectively ensure gradual and continuous reductions until 2050, it stipulates reduction targets that would transfer an excessive burden to the future,” the court said. The ruling now requires the national assembly to set legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2031 to 2049 by February 2026.

In a statement, the environment ministry said it respected the verdict and would implement follow-up measures. Koh Moon-hyun, a law professor at Soongsil University, told Reuters the ruling could potentially spark change in other countries. “The court must have looked at rulings in Europe and changed its stance,” he said. “It has created a chance for South Korea to drop its nickname as a climate villain.” In April, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government had violated the rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change.

South Korea remains the second highest emitter of carbon dioxide from coal-fired generating stations among all G20 countries. Australia is number one on that particular wall of shame. It has also lagged behind other industrialized nations in the installation of renewable energy resources. Last year, it revised down its 2030 targets for greenhouse gas reductions in the industrial sector, but kept its national goal of cutting emissions by 40% of 2018 levels.

The court ruling directs the legislature to revise the carbon neutrality act by the end of February 2026. Its ruling is an acknowledgement that the emission targets in the existing laws do not conform to the South Korean constitution because they violate the duty to protect basic rights and fail to protect future generations against a climate crisis. Climate advocacy groups said it was the first high court ruling on a government’s climate action in Asia, and could potentially set a precedent in a region where similar lawsuits have been filed in Taiwan and Japan.

Jubilation Greets Court Ruling In South Korea

The Korean court ruling was met by cheers, tears, and applause by the plaintiffs, activists, and lawyers, who chanted slogans like, “The verdict is not the end, but the beginning.” One of the plaintiffs, Han Je-ah, age 12, said, “I hope today’s decision will lead to a bigger change so that children do not have to file this kind of constitutional appeal. The climate crisis is having a huge impact on our lives and there is no time to delay.”

She has been involved in climate activism since she was 10, and has tried various activities such as litter picking and reducing plastic use, but felt disheartened at the lack of results. “No matter what I did, it seemed like the world wasn’t changing for the better,” she says. She believes carbon reduction goals “should be set more firmly and meticulously than now.” Quoting the South Korean constitution, she said, “All citizens have dignity and the right to pursue happiness, but the government does not respect our basic rights.” Kim Young-hee, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the verdict “an important decision for the entire society’s greenhouse gas reduction.”

South Korea’s climate litigation began in March 2020 when Youth 4 Climate Action, a group leading the Korean arm of the global school climate strike movement begun by Greta Thunberg, filed the first lawsuit. Subsequently, three additional lawsuits were consolidated, bringing the number of plaintiffs to 255. One of them is Hyunjung Yoon, who joined the climate movement at age 15.

She told The Guardian she sees the court’s decision as a turning point. “Until now, Korea has responded to the climate crisis as if achieving targets alone was a success. The government never considered how the risks are actually growing or how people’s lives are affected. We need to focus on safeguarding our rights, not just hitting numbers. Legislation and administration should not repeat past failures. We need law revisions and long term goals that actually protect people’s rights.”

The young activist believes their 4-year-long legal battle has laid a foundation for future progress. “We’re not just raising awareness about the severity of the climate crisis. We’re fighting to prevent people’s lives from disappearing because of it”, she said. “We don’t want a world where only those with the capacity to be safe survive. We’re striving for a society that controls risks and ensures safety for everyone, without excluding anyone.”

The Takeaway

The actions of the European Court of Human Rights and the South Korea Constitutional Court are welcome. They encourage us to think that someone, somewhere is actually taking the climate crisis seriously. On the other hand, we have the government of the United States actively opposing a similar lawsuit brought by Our Children’s Trust in 2016, which was finally dismissed earlier this year at the request of the Justice Department.

Court rulings do not shut down coal-fired generating stations, install solar panels, or build the grid interconnections that will make it possible to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and methane pollution that pours into the atmosphere every day. They do not undo the heat equivalent to hundreds of thousands of atomic bombs that gets added to the environment every day, every month, and every year. They do not force legislatures to do what they do not want to do because so many of their members are beholden to corporate polluters.

Even in the US today, where the politics of joy are lifting the dark shroud cast over the country by a disgraced former president and his lunatic supporters, the progressive candidate hardly dares breath the words “climate change,” because that concept is anathema to many. The only good news is that the cost of renewable energy is now so low that the transition away from fossil fuels is an economic imperative, no matter how unpopular it might be to some. Altruism and good intentions are all well and good, but in the end the thing that saves us, if anything can, will be the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place — the unquenchable thirst for profits.