This summer, many countries saw record-breaking extreme weather events that threaten the lives and livelihoods of many. South Korea’s and Pakistan’s flooding crises highlighted the need for resilient infrastructure, and with studies and leaders acknowledging the impact of global warming in worsening such extreme weather events, it is imperative for countries to push for climate policies — is enough being done?

The IPCC notes that human influence has been the likely and predominant cause of the recent changes in climate variables, which include greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and global surface temperature, while such changes were most likely the driving force for the rising frequency and intensity of natural disasters. These are only a preview of the further harm that could be caused if climate change continues, with climate refugees and climate-related spending rising exponentially. Such predictions call for a cohesive and collaborative effort among nations in devising climate policies that deal directly with climate variables, perhaps by reducing GHG emissions, as well as those that would increase our resilience toward impending disasters. Thus, it is necessary to reconsider current policies and their impact on various geographical regions.

The Paris Agreement, which was signed in 2016 and currently has 194 parties, is the first multinational agreement that binds nations to the shared goal of combating climate change. Improving upon the Kyoto Protocol, which focused on reducing the emissions of only developed countries, the Agreement’s power stems from the near-universal support for it, despite its implausible goal of preventing the global temperature from rising more than 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. To contribute to this goal, participating nations need to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline the proposed climate actions of each country. The NDCs are predicted to reduce the rate at which CO2 is emitted compared to previous years, but still brings us nowhere near actually meeting the 2˚C target. The predictions also do not take into account external factors: the possibility of countries withdrawing from the Agreement, or energy supply issues caused by international disputes. The war in Ukraine is one such example, with many countries turning to coal or investing in fossil fuels as sanctions on Russian energy and supply-chain issues caused by the conflict left them with dwindling energy supply. 

Another key component of the Agreement is that developed countries, who are the primary contributors of emissions, are requested to provide financial aid to developing countries to both achieve their climate goals and respond to climate-related disasters. This should somewhat lighten the unfair load climate change can take in more vulnerable countries, such as island states. However, this financial commitment is not binding, and countries may also pick and choose the channels they wish to fund, thus developing countries often do not get the necessary funds. Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement showed the world’s support toward the prevention of climate change by inducing transparency in legislation, resilience towards losses, as well as aid for developing nations to achieve more sustainable practices.

The US Inflation Reduction Act signed on August 16 also has many provisions for the climate, with 369 billion USD being set aside for climate investments. The bill followed the numerous record-breaking disasters that struck the US this year, including the June floods that led to the closing of Yellowstone National Park for the first time in 30 years. Coming after the overturn of former President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the legislation demonstrates the revived environmentalist stance of a major GHG emitter. Meanwhile, the strong green stance shown by the US has possibilities of influencing other nations. Rivaling nations may want an advantage in public perception of their nation, while others may find motivation from financial incentives for green industries. The incentives for clean energy-related manufacturing provided by the Act has already found companies willing to shift more of their operations into the US.

In Korea, climate policy is gaining ground, with the environment being one of the central issues of the 2022 presidential elections. However, climate policy took a backseat in determining the president, economic growth and employment being the prime concern, according to a survey from the Korea Development Institute. That might be part of the reason why Korea has a consistently low ranking in the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), with a very low rating for GHG emissions. Nevertheless, President Yoon has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality, respond to climate crises, and normalize nuclear power generation. 

This August, Korea was hit with the heaviest rainfall in 80 years. The preventable casualties from the event drew strong criticism toward the President, while the impact of climate change was recognized. The IPCC has reported that heavy rainfall has become more common and extreme while the global temperature rose. On August 23, Korea’s Ministry of Environment announced new measures for flood prevention in light of the recent floods. Among the proposed measures was the creation of an “AI flood forecast system” before next year’s flooding season, to be first implemented in the Dorim stream in Seoul before nationwide application. The Ministry also promised a response system for evacuating civilians, while proceeding with the implementation of underground rainwater storage systems in Gangnam and Gwanghwamun, along with underground waterways near the Dorim stream. Defense against the impacts of climate change is necessary, but there has been a lack of action in preventing further changes in the climate.

Many difficulties follow climate policy. The need for cooperation is one, since both the impact of climate change and the perceived economic losses from climate policies will differ around the globe. The non-compliance of countries with significant GHG emissions may further remove us from reaching climate goals. Cost is another major factor, with some nations expressing concern that climate policy may cost jobs and lower their competitiveness in the globe. Others counter by noting the cost of inaction stemming from public health costs and damages from natural disasters exacerbated by climate change, while clean energy investments may undo the loss of jobs. With the impact of climate change increasingly stepping into our lives in the forms of floods, typhoons, droughts, and even more gradual changes in weather patterns, combating climate change has and should become a top priority for legislators.

Copyright © The KAIST Herald Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution prohibited