Market Autonomy vs. Government Intervention: Two Approaches to Climate Change Response As the severity of climate change intensifies daily, we have reached an era where it can no longer be viewed as a mere natural disaster. Over the past decade, global greenhouse gas emissions have steadily increased, leading to rapid extreme weather events and resource depletion. According to the 6th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average temperature has already risen by 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, and as of 2026, it is estimated to have exceeded 1.2°C in some regions. This signifies a rapid approach to the 1.5°C target set by the Paris Agreement, interpreted as a signal of crossing the threshold into catastrophic climate change. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed in its 2025 annual report that the past decade was the warmest period in recorded history. Amidst this environmental crisis, the debate over the direction of the energy industry is intensifying. Should we rely on market autonomy to address climate change, or is it time for active government intervention? This question is being debated both domestically and internationally through two contrasting approaches. The first approach supports market-centric solutions. The Economist has traditionally addressed climate issues from a liberal economic perspective, emphasizing that technological innovation and private investment are key to achieving climate goals. Such publications warn that excessive government intervention could lead to economic inefficiency and stifle corporate creativity. They argue that market-based mechanisms, particularly carbon pricing, are effective solutions that can encourage autonomous participation from businesses and consumers in reducing greenhouse gases. Indeed, the European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS), launched in 2005, has significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions within the EU. By 2020, emissions in sectors covered by the ETS were reduced by approximately 35%, which is regarded as an example demonstrating the potential of market mechanisms. However, it should not be overlooked that the system also experienced initial challenges such as sharp price drops due to over-allocation of allowances and carbon price instability caused by economic fluctuations. In contrast, progressive media outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times have consistently advocated for strong government regulation. These publications emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, arguing that relying solely on market autonomy leaves too little time and the situation is too severe. They contend that bold policies, such as expanding large-scale public investment in renewable energy and introducing carbon taxes, are essential to achieve carbon reduction targets. In its 2018 special report, the IPCC recommended that to limit global warming to 1.5°C, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels. As of 2026, while we are past the halfway point, the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that the world is still not on track to meet this target. This demonstrates that the goal is difficult to achieve without active government intervention. Indeed, through strong government-led renewable energy policies, Denmark, as of 2025, generates over 80% of its electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power, aiming for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels by 2030. Norway, too, has achieved nearly 100% renewable electricity production, primarily through hydropower. These Nordic models exemplify the critical importance of long-term and consistent policy implementation by governments. What about South Korea's energy transition reality? South Korea relies heavily on imported energy resources and ranks high among global carbon-emitting nations. According to the Climate Transparency report, as of 2022, South Korea is the 7th to 8th largest greenhouse gas emitter globally, and its per capita emissions are among the highest in OECD countries. This is primarily attributed to its manufacturing-centric economic structure, high reliance on fossil fuels, and energy-intensive industries. The significant proportion of heavy industries such as steel, petrochemicals, and cement makes carbon reduction particularly challenging. In response, the South Korean government declared its '2050 Carbon Neutrality' goal in 2020, and in 2021, it raised its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target to a 40% reduction compared to 2018 levels. Furthermore, it is pursuing Green New Deal policies to expand renewable energy. However, as of 2026, the implementation status reveals numerous challenges. According to a 2025 government report, the share of renewable energy in electricity generation remains at approximately 15%, a challenging task requiring an average annual increase of 3 percentage points to meet the 2030 target of 30%. Opportunities and
Related Articles