For the future: Climate activists demonstrating after the verdict outside the court in Seoul. — Reuters
THE country’s Constitutional Court ruled that much of the country’s climate goals were unconstitutional, handing a landmark victory to young environmental activists, who wept for joy on the court steps.
The first such case in Asia, brought by children and teenagers who named an embryo as a lead plaintiff, claimed that South Korea’s legally binding climate commitments were insufficient and unmet, violating their constitutionally guaranteed human rights.
“Just now, the Constitutional Court ruled that it is unconstitutional that there is no government goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 2031 to 2050,” said Yoon Hyeon-jeong, one of the young activists involved.
“It was ruled that our right to live a safe life from the climate crisis should be guaranteed,” she added, barely managing to finish her sentence as she choked up with tears.
The court ruled yesterday that the government’s limited climate targets “violates the Constitution as it does not sufficiently protect the basic rights of the people,” the legal representatives of the plaintiffs said after the hearing.
The case – known as “Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea” after the in-utero nickname of an embryo, now toddler, involved – included four petitions by children.
In 2021, South Korea made a legally binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 290 million tonnes by 2030 – and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
To meet this goal, the country needs to reduce emissions by 5.4% every year from 2023 – a target they have so far failed to meet.
As a result of the ruling, Seoul will now have to revise its climate goals, said Youn Se-jong, a lawyer for the plaintiffs
A similar youth-led effort recently succeeded in the US state of Montana, while another is being heard at the European Higher Court.
The plaintiffs had argued that unless Seoul moved more quickly on climate goals, future generations would not only have to live in a degraded environment, but also have to bear the burden of undertaking massive greenhouse gas reductions.
This, the case claims, would mean that the state has violated its duty to protect their fundamental rights.
Similar climate cases globally have found success, for example, in Germany in 2021, where climate targets were ruled insufficient and unconstitutional. — AFP
