In a historic ruling, South Korea’s Constitutional Court declared that the country’s climate policies do not meet constitutional requirements to protect the environment for future generations. The court found that current efforts to combat climate change are lacking. This decision is a first for Asia and has given lawmakers until February 2026 to make necessary changes.
This ruling could inspire similar lawsuits across Asia. South Korea’s actions might set a precedent, encouraging countries to strengthen their climate commitments. Meanwhile, attention turns to Japan and its export credit agency, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), which recently began an internal investigation into alleged violations of its own environmental guidelines related to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in the Verde Island Passage, a crucial marine area in the Philippines.
### The Fossil Fuel Financing Dilemma
Fossil fuels contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), new investments in oil and gas are not sustainable if we want to avert severe climate consequences. Yet, South Korea is the world’s second-largest public financier of fossil fuels, pouring about $10 billion annually into overseas fossil projects, particularly in gas.
Japan is in a similar position, where it is a top financier of oil and gas initiatives. Despite committing at the G7 Summit in 2022 to phase out fossil fuel financing, Japan exploited loopholes to maintain current funding levels. In fact, its financing for fossil fuels rose in 2023 compared to the previous year. The JBIC alone accounted for 55% of public financing for international oil and gas projects.
### Spotlight on the Verde Island Passage
The environmental ramifications of Japan’s fossil fuel investments are significant. Local fishermen, indigenous groups, and environmental activists argue that these projects, including the controversial LNG terminal in the Verde Island Passage, have detrimental effects on ecosystems and community livelihoods. The terminal’s development poses a direct threat to marine life and the well-being of those who rely on these waters for fishing.
In light of these concerns, the JBIC’s investigation could lead to more stringent oversight of fossil fuel projects. This scrutiny could serve as a wake-up call for other financial institutions to rethink their support for projects that harm the environment.
### The Growing Wave of Climate Litigation
The ruling in South Korea highlights a growing trend in climate litigation. Such legal actions are increasingly being used to hold governments and corporations responsible for their environmental impacts. Since the Paris Agreement, there has been a noticeable uptick in climate-related lawsuits globally, compelling authorities to comply with their environmental commitments.
In 2023, more than 230 new climate cases were filed, an increase from 190 in 2022. While not all cases align perfectly with climate goals, those targeting financial support for environmentally harmful projects are on the rise. South Korea’s case isn’t isolated; it’s part of a broader movement where legal accountability is becoming essential in the fight against climate change.
This ruling serves as a vital reminder that pledges need tangible follow-through. Climate action is not just about making promises; it requires practical steps toward reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reassessing financial support for harmful projects.
In conclusion, as nations grapple with their climate responsibilities, legal avenues are increasingly seen as a powerful means to ensure governments fulfill their commitments.
Check out this related article: How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Solar Geoengineering: Key Insights from a Groundbreaking Conjoint Experiment
Source link