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

03/28/2025 Hors série
The pathway for climate investments in turbulent times – annual report 2024

We are witnessing a withdrawal of commitments to climate action. In the US, President Donald Trump does not hide his hostility to what he calls the ‘climate hoax’. In Europe and in France, new narratives around competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security are gaining ground, reflecting a new political reality. If there is still a broad consensus on the long-term objective of climate neutrality, how to get there is increasingly challenged, generating uncertainty. The scarcity of fiscal resources impacts the willingness to embark on the green transition.
03/24/2025
TRAMe2035 Scenario for a transition of households dietary habits by 2035

Current food production and consumption trends contribute to a range of public health, social and environmental problems. The need for a transition is no longer in doubt: we must move towards a system that produces healthy food with a low impact on ecosystems, is accessible to all, and ensures fair remuneration for producers. There’s no denying that the questions we raise here are politically and socially sensitive, as food is deeply connected to cultural, economic, environmental and health issues. Nevertheless, it is essential to develop ways to foster open discussion. IDDRI and I4CE have therefore joined forces with several other actors to provide insights for the debate.
03/21/2025 Blog post
In the absence of a carbon tax in Canada, measures to fill the gap are essential

On his first day in office, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the elimination of the consumer carbon tax, in response to political pressures rather than evidence-based concerns about its effectiveness or impact on affordability. The tax had played a crucial role in reducing the country’s GHG emissions, and along with other carbon pricing policies, was expected to contribute nearly half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030. Additionally, the majority of revenues collected were redistributed to citizens, protecting vulnerable households. Thus, without alternative policies to compensate, eliminating the tax could slow emissions reductions and increase inflationary pressure, particularly for low- and middle-income families who benefited financially from the Canada Carbon Rebate funded by the tax.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA: AN EMISSIONS TRADING CASE STUDY

The pathway for climate investments in turbulent times – annual report 2024

TRAMe2035 Scenario for a transition of households dietary habits by 2035

In the absence of a carbon tax in Canada, measures to fill the gap are essential