Publications

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: AN EMISSIONS TRADING CASE STUDY

22 June 2015 - Special issues

I4CE co-authors: Marion Afriat & Lara Dahan
EDF co-authors: Joojin Kim & Peter Sopher
IETA co-authors: Jeff Swartz & Stefano de Clara

The authors would like to thank Ruben Lubowski, Joe Billick, Clayton Munnings, Jennifer Andreassen, Richie Ahuja,
Sung Woo Kim (KPMG), Siwon Park, and Yong Gun Kim (Korea Environment Institute) for very helpful comments and information for this case study.

Since 1990, the Republic of Korea’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have increased by 132.9% and, in 2012, amounted to 688.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) excluding LULUCF. In 2012, the majority of CO2e emissions were derived from the energy sector, responsible for 87.2% of national emissions, followed by industrial processes (7.5%) the agriculture (3.2%) and the waste sector (accounted for 2.2%).
As part of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, the Republic of Korea pledged to reduce GHG emissions by 30% below its Business as Usual level by 2020, a goal that equates to a 4% reduction below 2005 levels.
A major step towards this goal came in April 2010, when the Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth (Framework Act) and the Presidential Decree promulgated thereunder came into effect. The three most important features of the Framework Act are that it:
1. sets the national GHG emission target to reduce emissions 30% below Business As Usual (BAU) levels by
2020;
2. establishes the Greenhouse Gas Target Management System (TMS), which sets emissions and energy targets
for business entities in the industrial, power generation, transportation, building, agriculture, food and waste
sectors; and;
3. provides the legal basis for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
Unlike the ETS, the TMS does not enable companies to trade credits. Penalties for non-compliance are maximum KRW 10 million (approximately US$9,100i) regardless of the level of infraction. Conversely under the ETS, companies are subject to penalties that are proportionate to the volume of GHG emissions exceeding the cap. In July 2011, the Republic of Korea announced BAU emissions levels it will use as the baseline for reducing emissions, and GHG emission reduction targets for each sector.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: AN EMISSIONS TRADING CASE STUDY Download
To learn more
  • 11/21/2025 Foreword of the week
    How to strengthen climate risk management and supervision to protect financial stability

    Climate change does not conform to business, political or supervisory regime cycles– its adverse long-term impacts lie beyond such horizons. Ten years ago, when Mark Carney highlighted this paradox in his landmark Tragedy of the Horizons speech, climate change was not considered a financial stability risk. Today, European supervisory stress tests estimate up to €638 billion in banking losses over 8 years, while the European Central Bank (ECB) reveals that over 90% of eurozone banks face climate and environmental risks. A key question arises: Is the supervisors’ primary focus on greening the financial system sufficient in the face of rising risks, especially stranded assets? 

  • 11/13/2025
    How solidarity levies can help bridge the climate and development finance gap

    The climate and development finance gap is large and widening, as Official Development Assistance (ODA) declines and needs multiply. With shrinking fiscal space in vulnerable countries, solidarity levies are gaining attention as a predictable source of international finance. Launched at COP28 by Barbados, France, and Kenya, the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force (GSLTF) is the main initiative in this space.

  • 11/12/2025
    Bridging the Finance Gap: Leveraging National and Subnational Public Financial Institutions for Localised Climate and Development Action

    National Public Banks (NPBs) and Subnational Public Financial Institutions (SPFIs), including development banks and agencies as well as climate and green funds at the subnational level, play an increasingly vital role in financing climate action and the just transition. While national governments provide frameworks aligned with nationally determined contributions (NDCs), actual implementation occurs largely at the subnational level, which currently lacks sufficient funding. SPFIs can work as financial intermediaries, as they not only understand local needs and have stronger ties with local governments and businesses, but also access much larger volumes of capital from more diverse sources. 

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer