“Can there be a Green New Deal without a target for reducing carbon emissions?”

The Green New Deal policy released by the government on July 14 is under fire from environmental specialists. The Green New Deal aimed to respond to the climate crisis by breaking away from a carbon-centered industrial structure and to create environmentally friendly “green” jobs. It also stressed a just social transition for industries and workers who might suffer a blow in the process. In other words, the policy aimed to restructure the entire social system. But the latest policy failed to clearly present a goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which can be seen as central to the new policy, and it also included completely irrelevant policies under the name of the Green New Deal.

The biggest problem experts cite is the policy’s vague goal. The government said it would invest a budget of 73.4 trillion won by 2025 to create 659,000 jobs, but it failed to specify how much greenhouse gases it would reduce through these measures by when. In the past, environmental groups argued that the government must include “the achievement of net zero (zero net emissions of carbon dioxide) by 2050” in the Green New Deal. But in the latest announcement, the government only said it would “aim to be carbon neutral.”

The government also stated, “We will implement plans to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goal by 2030 (536 million tons) as scheduled,” but there was hardly any difference from the target of 543 million tons that the government had set in the past as the goal for 2020. This was why Climate Analytics, a Germany-based research institute specializing in climate science policies said in May that South Korea’s greenhouse gas reduction goal was not nearly enough and voiced concerns that if other countries took action on the climate crisis at the level of South Korea, the Earth’s temperature would rise by more than 4 degrees Celsius.

Kim Ji-seok, a climate energy specialist at Greenpeace said in a phone conversation with the Kyunghyang Shinmun on July 15, “It (the government’s Green New Deal) is missing a goal based on scientific facts.” He further argued, “Net zero is a matter of course that even private companies like Amazon and Microsoft have declared to achieve by 2030 and 2040 respectively,” and said, “If it were five years ago, maybe, but presenting this as a goal in a plan drawn in 2020 is falling too far behind.” Hong Jong-ho, the dean of the Graduate School of Environmental Studies at Seoul National University said, “If the government wants to implement a green New Deal, it has to have a clear goal and clearly state what policy means will be necessary to achieve that goal. But both are missing.” He added, “The latest announcement simply states how much of the fiscal resources the country will spend, lists several businesses, and pledges to create a certain number of jobs.”

The “eco-friendly future mobility,” where the largest portion of the Green New Deal budget was allocated (20.3 trillion won), also came under fire. The government claimed it would distribute 1.13 million electric cars and 200,000 hydrogen cars, but it failed to present any direction on its measures concerning motor (internal-combustion engine) vehicles that are still being manufactured at present. In 2017, transportation accounted for 16% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, and most were from motor vehicles. Han Jae-gak, director of the Energy and Climate Policy Institute said, “If the government claims to increase the number of electric cars while leaving the motor vehicle industry as it is, it only means it will fund companies.” What’s more, in the case of hydrogen cars, there is still the issue of carbon emissions from hydrogen production, yet the government failed to mention this problem.

Experts also questioned some of the plans saying, “I don’t see why this is in the Green New Deal.” Burying power lines and communication lines in areas with high demand for such measures, such as roads students use to go to school, and installing WI-FI in all school classrooms are a few examples. The government did not state how much greenhouse gas emissions would actually be reduced with such policies. Hong said, “These, the government can actually do with the general budget. If it claims to implement the Green New Deal with a supplemental budget, then it should include symbolic projects, but the government has lost focus.” In the end, the Green New Deal drew criticism that the government simply presented its existing environment-related policies under the title of a Green New Deal instead of seek a fundamental transition of the system. Yi Yu-jin, a researcher at the Green Transition Institute said, “There was no message, such as improvements to rates or the introduction of the carbon tax. They only attached a budget to green projects rather than present a comprehensive approach with the net zero in mind.” She added, “It feels like the government isn’t sure about the Green New Deal.”