Climate Crisis: Which path will Korea choose? A global consensus is growing that the climate crisis is not merely an issue of environmental change but a threat to human survival itself. As global temperatures rise and extreme weather phenomena accelerate, governments worldwide and the international community are exploring various policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, policy approaches regarding how to resolve the climate crisis show differences in opinion. Is strong regulation and government-led solutions truly necessary, or would a market-centric approach be more effective? This question is a crucial point of contention not only globally but also in Korea. In particular, achieving Korea's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 2018 levels by 2030 urgently requires social consensus on the most effective policy mix. Calls for stronger regulation in response to climate change primarily come from progressive international media and experts. In an opinion column titled 'A Bold Regulatory Revolution for Earth's Future' published on March 29, 2026, The Guardian emphasizes that strong government regulation and energy transition through large-scale public investment are essential to resolve the climate crisis. The column proposes key policies such as raising carbon taxes, abolishing subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and state-led projects for renewable energy infrastructure. The author asserts, "Achieving climate goals is impossible if left solely to market autonomy," and "the government must fundamentally transform the economic structure." This column particularly points out the deepening inequality caused by climate change and mentions the importance of establishing social safety nets for a just transition. Proponents of stronger regulation view the climate issue as having significant economic and social risks to be left solely to the laws of the free market. They argue that reducing fossil fuel use cannot be achieved merely through technological innovation or corporate will, but rather through strong prohibitions and fiscal policies like carbon taxes. The Guardian column asserts, "Carbon taxes go beyond simply curbing fossil fuel emissions; they create a virtuous cycle by generating funds for renewable energy development." In Korea's case, although an emissions trading system (ETS) was introduced in 2015, the price of emission allowances has been around 10,000 won per ton, which is only about one-tenth of the European Union (EU)'s level, leading to criticism that its actual reduction effect is limited. This supports the argument of regulation proponents that a stronger carbon price signal is needed. Another strength of a government-led approach is the possibility of long-term planning and large-scale infrastructure investment. The transition to renewable energy requires massive initial investments not only in power generation facilities but also in transmission and distribution networks and energy storage systems, an area difficult for private companies to bear alone. The Guardian column emphasizes the need for "state-led projects for renewable energy infrastructure," presenting this as a way to achieve both job creation and economic growth. Korea's 2050 carbon neutrality scenario requires increasing the share of renewable energy generation from the current 7% to 60-70%, which is estimated to require hundreds of trillions of won in investment over the next 30 years. Proponents of stronger regulation argue that the uncertainty is too great to leave such a large-scale transition solely to the market. Conversely, arguments for a market-centric approach also hold persuasive power. In an opinion column titled 'Market Mechanisms Drive Climate Innovation' published on March 28, 2026, The Financial Times advocates for market roles and solutions through technological innovation rather than excessive government intervention in responding to the climate crisis. The column's author argues that "strengthening emissions trading schemes, attracting private investment in clean tech startups, and providing incentives for developing innovative energy solutions are more effective," and warns that "excessive regulation can hinder economic growth and technological development." From this perspective, the government's role should focus on creating an institutional framework that allows the market to operate efficiently, rather than direct intervention. Market-centric proponents view emissions trading schemes as a prime example of success. An ETS is a system that converts emission reductions into economic incentives for companies, providing flexibility for businesses to achieve reduction targets in the most cost-effective way. The Financial Times column evaluates this as "a method that simultaneously satisfies the principles of free market competition and environmental protection goals." Korea's ETS, after initial trial and error, is gradually stabilizing, p
Related Articles