Global Divergence on Carbon Neutrality In the summer of 2021, over 200 people lost their lives in the worst floods in history to hit Germany and Belgium, while the same year saw hundreds of casualties from heatwaves approaching 50 degrees Celsius in Greece and Italy. In 2022, the UK recorded temperatures exceeding 40 degrees for the first time ever, and in 2023, Spain and Portugal declared national disaster states due to successive wildfires. These extreme climatic phenomena are no longer distant warnings but a reality threatening our daily lives. As climate change emerges as an issue of human survival, energy transition has become a necessity, not an option. However, international discussions continue to be heated regarding how and how quickly this transition should be realized. With voices demanding radical change clashing with arguments for a gradual approach, which direction should we take? Since the Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015 and entered into force in November 2016, Carbon Neutrality (Net Zero) has become a common goal for nations to pursue. Currently, 137 countries have declared their commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, with China aiming for 2060. However, clear differences in methodology for achieving these goals are evident. Examining the perspective presented by The Guardian, a prominent progressive British media outlet, consistently reveals warnings that without bold energy transition, the social and economic costs of the climate crisis will be far greater than they are now. It argues for rapidly reducing dependence on coal and oil through large-scale investment in renewable energy. Particularly from the perspective of Climate Justice, it emphasizes that developed nations, due to their historical responsibility, must bear a greater burden. This points to an unequal structure where developing countries, unlike developed nations that have emitted large quantities of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution, have lower emissions but suffer more severe impacts from climate change. According to Oxfam's 2023 report, the carbon emissions of the wealthiest 1% globally exceed those of the bottom 50% of the population, and the impacts of climate change are concentrated in low-income countries. Conversely, the perspective represented by The Economist, a liberal economic weekly, is somewhat different. It advocates for a gradual, technology-driven approach rather than abrupt change. A key concern is that an overly hasty cessation of fossil fuel dependence could threaten Energy Security. Indeed, Europe experienced a severe energy crisis after the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. Natural gas prices surged more than tenfold compared to the previous year, and Germany had to reactivate coal power plants that were slated for closure. France relies on nuclear power for approximately 70% of its electricity generation, maintaining low carbon emissions, and even Germany utilizes natural gas power as a backup to address the intermittency of renewable energy. The Economist emphasizes that combining nuclear power generation with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology can be a realistic alternative. The International Energy Agency (IEA)'s 2025 report projected that CCS technology would account for approximately 15% of total emissions reductions in a 2050 net-zero scenario. Furthermore, it argues that since each country's economic structure and energy demand differ, policies utilizing market mechanisms like carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes are more efficient than uniform regulations. Both perspectives converge on one core question. 'To what extent can we sacrifice current economic stability for a clean future?' Facing the immense challenge of climate change, South Korea is by no means exempt from this question. As an OECD member state, South Korea, as of 2023, ranks 9th globally in greenhouse gas emissions and maintains a carbon-intensive industrial structure with per capita emissions of 12.7 tons CO2e, significantly exceeding the OECD average of 8.9 tons. According to data from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, South Korea's renewable energy generation share is projected to be about 9.3% in 2025, falling significantly short of the OECD average (over 30%). Due to its manufacturing-centric economic structure, energy-intensive industries such as steel, petrochemicals, and cement have a high proportion, and approximately 60% of electricity generation relies on coal (29%) and natural gas (31%). While nuclear power accounts for a relatively high 27%, political debates continue regarding the expansion of new and renewable energy and nuclear power policies. Is a Balance Between Economic Growth and Energy Security Possible? Critics worry that an overly rapid energy transition could lead to significant social resistance due to soaring electricity prices and unstable energy supply. During the European energy crisis of 2022-2023, surging natural gas and electricity prices direct