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
  • 07/19/2024 Foreword of the week
    Public climate investment: there is no “magic” money but there is room for manoeuvre

    The recent election campaign in France didn’t give priority to the climate and environment. However, taking climate action is still widely supported by the French voters and most decision-makers. But a mandate to act is not enough. To make up for the current shortfall in climate investment, we need a solid consensus on the financial resources to be deployed to the climate transition in the long term. Today, these resources come partly from public budgets. And it is not a secret that the public contribution probably will have to increase in the future.

  • 07/18/2024 Blog post
    The Climate Investment Challenge behind the European Prosperity Plan

    Ursula Von der Leyen’s competitiveness agenda is grabbing headlines – but the hard work of climate implementation and investment is only just beginning. In this blog, Ciaran Humphreys and Dorthe Nielsen outline the challenges this era of implementation poses, and how to align climate ambition with the President’s economic vision.  Ursula Von der Leyen has been re-elected as Commission President – and by a wider margin than expected. Before the vote, she set out her political priorities for the next EU mandate. Her vision focused on themes of security, economic competitiveness, and enlargement – unsurprisingly so at a time when the EU is increasingly concerned about its place in the world. 

  • 07/12/2024
    Financing the climate transition in France: what room for manœuvre on public funding needs?

    France is facing a climate investment deficit relative to its climate objectives. Today, these investment are already putting a strain on public finances, whether in terms of investing in public facilities or co-financing projects by households and business. Increasing climate investments is therefore a challenge for public finances. But the scale of the challenge varies, depending on future policies. So what room for manoeuvre is there in terms of climate-related public spending needs?

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