Countries in Contrast: U.S., South Korea and the Green New Deal
By Jasleen Kalsi and Lauren Zakari, 8/10/2020
South Korea: Feasibility in the face of Decentralization
The feasibility of a Green New Deal has long viewed with skepticism in South Korea—until now. In April, the National Assembly elections resulted in President Moon Jae-in and the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) winning and releasing a Green New Deal proposal free from any opposition. The Moon administration and DPK proposed the Green New Deal as a way to revitalize the virus-ravaged economy by pursuing green policies. However, there are holes in the proposed plan. For example, South Korea plans to strengthen its commitment to renewable energy and environmentally friendly policies, but fails to provide a timeline for achieving net-0 carbon emissions.
President Moon Jae-in provided a framework to bolster low carbon power sources and green industries in an effort to triple South Korea’s renewable power output by 2025. According to the proposed plan, South Korea plans to augment solar and wind capacity from 12.7 gigawatts in 2019 to 42.7 gigawatts by 2025. Additionally, 9.2 trillion won will be allocated to windmill farms and subsidies for solar power in homes by 2025. Moon’s administration is investing into the development of a hydrogen based economy; one of the key parts of the transition is producing hydrogen vehicles as an alternative to carbon. The administration seeks to produce 500,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for export and domestic consumption by 2030 and to build new hydrogen production facilities that would be capable of supplying enough hydrogen to fuel 49,000 vehicles. South Korea is also expanding its system that allocates the yearly emissions levels for each business in Seoul every five years to hopefully cover the rest of the country. Altogether, the GND will cost about $1.1 billion USD in 2020, and $22 billion USD by 2025 to put in place, which Jae-in plans to finance with a carbon tax.
While South Korea’s Green New Deal looks good on paper, many environmental activists have voiced their concerns regarding the proposed plan. Activists point out that the plan doesn’t give a timeline to when South Korea will reach net-zero emissions, or end coal-financing. According to the International Energy Agency, South Korea is the world’s seventh largest carbon emitter, with coal making up about 40% of the energy mix and renewable energy making up just 6%. The country is also one of the biggest funders of coal plants abroad. Currently, South Korea has 60 coal fired plants that make up about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, with an additional seven units under construction. As stated by Climate Analytics, Seoul will have to phase out coal by 2029 to do its fair share in guaranteeing a livable future. The transition to renewable energy will be tough, especially as COVID-19 has worsened the economy, causing the government to bail out and subsidize companies like Doosan Heavy, which builds power stations at home and overseas. Without a nationally coordinated effort to end coal financing, a Green New Deal will not be possible for South Korea.
In spite of this, local governments have banded together to make the Green New Deal a reality. On June 5th, 226 out of 228 local governments declared a climate emergency at the National Assembly. In the declaration, the governors pledged to set their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to meet the 1.5°C goal by 2100, establish local energy plans to achieve regional energy independence, and work together closely with civilians to establish institutions to address the sustainability crisis. South Korea has long been seen as a ‘climate villain’ for falling short of the greenhouse gas reduction goals set by the United Nations. However, it is the first East Asian country to enact a Green New Deal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. Although critics say that the plan is lacking in certain aspects, it is a step in the right direction to combat the dire climate crisis.
The feasibility of a Green New Deal has long viewed with skepticism in South Korea—until now. In April, the National Assembly elections resulted in President Moon Jae-in and the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) winning and releasing a Green New Deal proposal free from any opposition. The Moon administration and DPK proposed the Green New Deal as a way to revitalize the virus-ravaged economy by pursuing green policies. However, there are holes in the proposed plan. For example, South Korea plans to strengthen its commitment to renewable energy and environmentally friendly policies, but fails to provide a timeline for achieving net-0 carbon emissions.
President Moon Jae-in provided a framework to bolster low carbon power sources and green industries in an effort to triple South Korea’s renewable power output by 2025. According to the proposed plan, South Korea plans to augment solar and wind capacity from 12.7 gigawatts in 2019 to 42.7 gigawatts by 2025. Additionally, 9.2 trillion won will be allocated to windmill farms and subsidies for solar power in homes by 2025. Moon’s administration is investing into the development of a hydrogen based economy; one of the key parts of the transition is producing hydrogen vehicles as an alternative to carbon. The administration seeks to produce 500,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for export and domestic consumption by 2030 and to build new hydrogen production facilities that would be capable of supplying enough hydrogen to fuel 49,000 vehicles. South Korea is also expanding its system that allocates the yearly emissions levels for each business in Seoul every five years to hopefully cover the rest of the country. Altogether, the GND will cost about $1.1 billion USD in 2020, and $22 billion USD by 2025 to put in place, which Jae-in plans to finance with a carbon tax.
While South Korea’s Green New Deal looks good on paper, many environmental activists have voiced their concerns regarding the proposed plan. Activists point out that the plan doesn’t give a timeline to when South Korea will reach net-zero emissions, or end coal-financing. According to the International Energy Agency, South Korea is the world’s seventh largest carbon emitter, with coal making up about 40% of the energy mix and renewable energy making up just 6%. The country is also one of the biggest funders of coal plants abroad. Currently, South Korea has 60 coal fired plants that make up about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, with an additional seven units under construction. As stated by Climate Analytics, Seoul will have to phase out coal by 2029 to do its fair share in guaranteeing a livable future. The transition to renewable energy will be tough, especially as COVID-19 has worsened the economy, causing the government to bail out and subsidize companies like Doosan Heavy, which builds power stations at home and overseas. Without a nationally coordinated effort to end coal financing, a Green New Deal will not be possible for South Korea.
In spite of this, local governments have banded together to make the Green New Deal a reality. On June 5th, 226 out of 228 local governments declared a climate emergency at the National Assembly. In the declaration, the governors pledged to set their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to meet the 1.5°C goal by 2100, establish local energy plans to achieve regional energy independence, and work together closely with civilians to establish institutions to address the sustainability crisis. South Korea has long been seen as a ‘climate villain’ for falling short of the greenhouse gas reduction goals set by the United Nations. However, it is the first East Asian country to enact a Green New Deal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. Although critics say that the plan is lacking in certain aspects, it is a step in the right direction to combat the dire climate crisis.
America: A Massaging Problem
The idea of a Green New Deal for the US is nothing new; the U.S. Senate voted against passing this bill just last February. Since then, sensational media coverage has often obscured the details and true meaning of this policy proposal, reducing it to something to do with the environment, Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez, and that may or may not mean the end of cows. But what exactly does this piece of legislation really demand, and why has it divided the country?
The Green New Deal is a baseline 10-year-plan for the US to be carbon-neutral by the year 2030 and to create millions of new jobs for Americans, while also addressing other issues such as institutionalized poverty and healthcare reform. The Green New Deal Coalition plans to achieve this in a “WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change,” expecting the government to set aside at least 60% of their yearly GDP to focus on these transformative measures. The plan is to invest in public transportation, sustainable agriculture, and conservation efforts for critical infrastructure while simultaneously shifting away from the fossil fuel industry and nuclear energy.
Along with the environmental focus, the plan also details working with poorer communities that would be disproportionately affected by the switch to renewable energy. They also laid out an Economic Bill of Rights that would support single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing, and free college education. These intertwining issues have been at the forefront of climate activism with a new emphasis on intersectionality.
Another important point to note about this resolution is that it would be non-binding, meaning that even if the Senate did approve to pass it, there would be no legal mandate for any actual or immediate change. The Green New Deal is simply a resolution that would signal Congressional goals and for potential future environmental policy. This begs the question: if this legislation makes it through the Senate, what is the incentive to follow through?
Furthermore, while the Green New Deal has garnered support from many liberal Democrats and the recently revived left, there has been pushback against this proposition from Republicans and even some centrist Democrats. For many, the idea of a radical plan to help the environment is too expensive and ambitious to be good for the future of the country, as it is projected that the 10-year-plan will cost up to $63 trillion - more than any other government-lead program. Additionally, a few climate scientists have spoken out, saying that the goals of the deal are unachievable.
To the public—especially the working class—this feels like too much of a financial burden. Others have twisted the words of the document to paint the Green New Deal as “nothing more than a socialist Trojan horse.” Some have even simplified some of the policies to the sensational idea of the government taking away hamburgers and milkshakes.
South Korea, previously seen as an enemy to the environment because of its failure to reduce emissions, has now become the first East Asian countries to adopt a Green New Deal similar to that proposed in the US. One advantage that South Korea does have is the remnants of a collectivist society, with harsher enforcement of rules. In contrast, the individualistic cultural norms of the US leave many unwilling to compromise and see government regulation as threats to personal freedoms.
This mistrust of the government and zealous defense of rights make it nearly impossible for something like the Green New Deal to pass as unanimously in the US. There's little to no sense of unity, stemming from a divisive presidency, which has only been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis. Mandated quarantines, shutdown of businesses, and mask mandates are seen as malicious ways for the government to strip the citizens of their “freedom,” prompting protests nationwide. Similarly, the Green New Deal is being interpreted as a threat to the American livelihood that will definitely be met with angry, gun-wielding protesters who believe the country will descend into a Stalin-like era.
The idea of a Green New Deal for the US is nothing new; the U.S. Senate voted against passing this bill just last February. Since then, sensational media coverage has often obscured the details and true meaning of this policy proposal, reducing it to something to do with the environment, Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez, and that may or may not mean the end of cows. But what exactly does this piece of legislation really demand, and why has it divided the country?
The Green New Deal is a baseline 10-year-plan for the US to be carbon-neutral by the year 2030 and to create millions of new jobs for Americans, while also addressing other issues such as institutionalized poverty and healthcare reform. The Green New Deal Coalition plans to achieve this in a “WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change,” expecting the government to set aside at least 60% of their yearly GDP to focus on these transformative measures. The plan is to invest in public transportation, sustainable agriculture, and conservation efforts for critical infrastructure while simultaneously shifting away from the fossil fuel industry and nuclear energy.
Along with the environmental focus, the plan also details working with poorer communities that would be disproportionately affected by the switch to renewable energy. They also laid out an Economic Bill of Rights that would support single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing, and free college education. These intertwining issues have been at the forefront of climate activism with a new emphasis on intersectionality.
Another important point to note about this resolution is that it would be non-binding, meaning that even if the Senate did approve to pass it, there would be no legal mandate for any actual or immediate change. The Green New Deal is simply a resolution that would signal Congressional goals and for potential future environmental policy. This begs the question: if this legislation makes it through the Senate, what is the incentive to follow through?
Furthermore, while the Green New Deal has garnered support from many liberal Democrats and the recently revived left, there has been pushback against this proposition from Republicans and even some centrist Democrats. For many, the idea of a radical plan to help the environment is too expensive and ambitious to be good for the future of the country, as it is projected that the 10-year-plan will cost up to $63 trillion - more than any other government-lead program. Additionally, a few climate scientists have spoken out, saying that the goals of the deal are unachievable.
To the public—especially the working class—this feels like too much of a financial burden. Others have twisted the words of the document to paint the Green New Deal as “nothing more than a socialist Trojan horse.” Some have even simplified some of the policies to the sensational idea of the government taking away hamburgers and milkshakes.
South Korea, previously seen as an enemy to the environment because of its failure to reduce emissions, has now become the first East Asian countries to adopt a Green New Deal similar to that proposed in the US. One advantage that South Korea does have is the remnants of a collectivist society, with harsher enforcement of rules. In contrast, the individualistic cultural norms of the US leave many unwilling to compromise and see government regulation as threats to personal freedoms.
This mistrust of the government and zealous defense of rights make it nearly impossible for something like the Green New Deal to pass as unanimously in the US. There's little to no sense of unity, stemming from a divisive presidency, which has only been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis. Mandated quarantines, shutdown of businesses, and mask mandates are seen as malicious ways for the government to strip the citizens of their “freedom,” prompting protests nationwide. Similarly, the Green New Deal is being interpreted as a threat to the American livelihood that will definitely be met with angry, gun-wielding protesters who believe the country will descend into a Stalin-like era.
