The government is stirring up a discussion by suggesting the creation of a new Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministry. They argue it’s essential to tackle global warming and fulfill climate commitments. But is this the best move? Strengthening the existing interministerial council could actually lead to better outcomes. By building on current structures, we can reduce mistakes, save resources, and ensure clear and effective responses.
In 2015, the Paris Agreement aimed to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Countries worldwide committed to carbon neutrality by 2050. While some European nations are aiming for even earlier goals, China and India have set theirs for 2060 and 2070, respectively. The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, produced by burning fossil fuels. Transitioning to net-zero emissions will likely increase energy costs and redefine how we use energy.
Korea’s energy policy hinges on three key factors: energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability. The Carbon Neutral Green Growth Commission in Korea aims to expand renewable energy to a larger part of the mix by 2050. This includes boosting hydrogen supply, reducing fossil fuel reliance, and enhancing carbon capture efforts.
However, any transition will come with higher costs. Energy-saving and efficiency measures will be vital. The Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy has vast experience overseeing energy policy, making it well-suited for coordinating these efforts. Splitting responsibilities without a clear plan could muddy accountability.
Comparisons with Europe and Australia reveal challenges. These regions enjoy rich renewable resources, with renewable energy making up 40-50% of their supply. For instance, Norway generates over 95% of its energy from renewable sources. In contrast, Korea currently sources less than 10% of its energy from renewables. This raises doubts about managing the significant shifts needed in energy supply and demand.
In Korea, around 70% of energy consumption is for heating, with only 30% for electricity. Renewables primarily target electricity generation, offering limited solutions for heating. Dividing responsibility between ministries could create confusion.
Industrial energy use accounts for over 60% of Korea’s total energy consumption, focusing on sectors like steel and cement. Transitioning steel production from coal to hydrogen can dramatically increase costs, risking Korea’s competitiveness in global markets.
Globally, the largest emitters are China, the U.S., India, and Russia, making up more than half of emissions. If these countries hesitate to meet their commitments, smaller nations may struggle to make meaningful progress. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump has added uncertainty. Given these global dynamics, Korea must consider whether creating a new ministry will lead to increased costs, confusion, and diluted expertise.
Ultimately, achieving carbon neutrality should align closely with energy and industrial strategies. Sustainability needs to be central to this discussion. A more practical approach may be to keep the current structures intact, improve coordination, and view the formation of a new ministry as a long-term goal rather than an immediate necessity.
For further reading on global energy policies, you can check out the International Energy Agency’s report.
