[The Editors' Verdict] For True Carbon Neutrality, the CNC Must Stop

The Carbon Neutrality Committee (CNC) has announced a carbon neutrality scenario and is gathering public opinions. This is a preparatory step to finalize the carbon neutrality plan by the end of October. The public is given three options. The goal is to reduce energy consumption in 2050 compared to 2018 by 0.3% for option 1, 2.2% for option 2, and 2.9% for option 3. All three options show little difference from 2018. There is also no significant difference in greenhouse gas emissions. Option 1 allows emissions of 25 million tons, option 2 allows 19 million tons, and option 3 is carbon neutrality, or 'net zero.' The difference between net zero in option 3 and option 1 is only 25 million tons, which is just 3.4% of the 720 million tons of greenhouse gases emitted in 2018. Considering 30 years and various uncertainties, a 3% difference is not significant. It is embarrassing to present these three options to the public and ask them to decide.

The CNC vividly explained the climate crisis. Human casualties in Europe caused by record-breaking rainfall in a thousand years, large-scale wildfires in the United States, and in South Korea, 194 deaths and economic losses of 12 trillion won due to weather disasters in the past decade... Therefore, the climate crisis is an urgent matter directly related to survival, requiring concrete and swift action. This is why South Korea and 197 countries worldwide agreed to the Paris Climate Agreement and are pursuing carbon neutrality. No citizen ignores carbon neutrality. However, the path to a better world without climate disasters is not free. What is important is to inform the public about what they must bear for carbon neutrality. The carbon neutrality proposed by the CNC is nothing more than a populist proposal akin to 'welfare without tax increases.'

When presenting the options, the CNC should have explained how much the public’s burden would be, how industries would change, how jobs would be affected, how much sweat would be shed in midsummer, and how much cold would have to be endured in midwinter for carbon reduction. To judge the gravity of each option, people need to know the costs they must bear and the sacrifices they must endure. However, when asked the simplest and clearest indicator?how much electricity bills will rise?the answer was 'unknown.' There is no blind test as blind as this.

Another reason the CNC’s carbon neutrality scenario feels forced is its insistence on phasing out nuclear power. Carbon neutrality without nuclear power is impossible in South Korea. If they persist, the cost to the public will be severe. The only zero-carbon energy sources we have are renewables and nuclear power. We cannot expect electricity from hydrogen or ammonia power generation, which are still under research, to be three times that of nuclear power. Reckless expansion of renewable energy will inevitably require connecting power grids through North Korea to China and Russia, raising energy security risks. The public must be asked whether they are willing to bear these risks and costs.

Just by constructing Shin Hanul Units 3 and 4, greenhouse gas reductions could reach 20 million tons. This could render the CNC’s worst-case scenario (option 1) and best-case scenario (option 3) meaningless. The excuse that nuclear power was excluded due to safety concerns is outdated. As the CNC said, the climate crisis is imminent and a global emergency, so all available means must be used. The CNC stated that 200,000 citizens became disaster victims due to weather disasters in the past decade. We must ask whether even one disaster victim was caused by our nuclear power plants. What is the immediate threat, and how can we respond to the crisis by paying the minimum cost? If the CNC cannot answer this, it is better to stop the carbon neutrality efforts.

Jung Dong-wook, Professor, Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Chung-Ang University