Climate change response and 'guilt by association' system
By Kim Sung-woo
On Nov. 13, the 26th U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) came to an end. About 40,000 participants, including representatives from 197 countries around the world, gathered together and had two weeks of intense discussions to salvage the destiny of the earth.
As a result, the COP26 produced the Glasgow Climate Pact, targeting coal reduction, and reached agreements regarding detailed provisions of the Paris Agreement, including the carbon market and status reports. The international community, however, had mixed feelings about the outcome.
While it was fortunate to have a final deal struck, the outcome falls short of the ultimate condition to save the earth: a limitation of the rise in the average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change report published in September 2021, carbon emissions in 2030 will be 16 percent higher than in 2010, based on the analysis of 191 countries' nationally determined contributions (NDC). Thus, Earth's temperature will rise by more than 2.7 degrees on average under this scenario. Even taking into account additional NDCs submitted during the COP26, there will be a temperature rise of up to 2.1 degrees on average, according to an analysis by Climate Action Tracker.
So what does this deal mean to future generations?
First things first; let's diagnose the reality from a scientific perspective. Last August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the most well-known organizations in the field of climate science, published its sixth report. According to the IPCC report, the CO2 density in the atmosphere recorded 410 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in the past two million years, resulting in a 1.1 degree increase in the average temperature, an increase of about five times in the number of climate aberrations, such as floods and droughts, and about a 20cm rise in sea levels compared to pre-industrial levels.
The report also made it clear that the rise in temperature was mainly attributable to human activity. What's even more problematic is the speed of climate change. The report analyzed that among 2.4 trillion tons of cumulative carbon emissions since 1850, 20 percent of these were produced during just the past eight years.
Among five different scenarios from the worst to the best, even the “medium” case scenario projected a 2.7 degree increase vis-a-vis pre-industrial levels, suggesting that the earth will likely pass a critical tipping point in terms of climate change.
The situation on the Korean Peninsula is even more serious. According to the 2020 Evaluation Report on Climate Change in Korea (revised in Oct. 2021) published by the National Institute of Meteorological Sciences, the Korean Peninsula alone has seen an approximately 1.8 degree increase during the period from 1912 to 2017.
While global warming is indeed a global phenomenon, its actual impact significantly varies across different regions. Climate change in Korea is about twice as severe as the world average. In particular, Korea has seen a 1.2 degree rise in the sea surface temperature during the past 49 years, which is 2.6 times faster than the world average.
This diagnosis points to the disturbing fact that the current generation will have a significant impact on the lives of future generations in terms of both physical and monetary aspects. A paper titled, “Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes,” published in Science (September 2021), illustrates the physical impact.
The author estimated that a person born in 2020 will experience about two- to seven-times more extreme climate phenomena ― such as heat waves ― during their lifetime, compared to a person born in 1960. Generational inequities are even more serious from a monetary perspective. In November 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that by 2050, about $11.8 trillion worth of the assets possessed by companies as of 2019 will lose their value due to climate change, quoting data from the International Renewable Energy Agency.
About 30 percent of this loss in the value of assets will arise from the energy sector and the rest from the real estate sector. All in all, the evidence points to the fact that the current generation's decision making on climate issues may produce a significant adverse impact on future generations in terms of their physical, living environment and monetary well-being.
A long time ago, Korea used to have a so-called “guilt by association system.” The system imposed collective liability on members of a certain group even if the act in question was committed by a single person in the group.
For example, if parents were found guilty of an act of misconduct, their children were also punished for their parents' guilt. The guilt by association system lasted until the late Joseon Kingdom era, which was before the modern principle that “guilt is individual” was accepted and established in Korea. Decision making on climate change and the impact on our future generation reminds me of this abandoned idea of guilt by association.
Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Korean Constitution states, “All people have a right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, and the nation and the people must make efforts to conserve the environment.” This provision was the basis of last year's constitutional petition against the government filed by a group of teenagers, claiming that the government's mediocre actions in response to the climate crisis were infringing on their constitutional rights.
The phrase “All people” can be interpreted as also including future generations in this country, and the efforts to be made by “the nation and the people” can be interpreted as the current generation's response to ongoing climate change. Responding to climate change with this mindset is necessary to prevent the modern revival of the guilt by association system in this already challenging climate crisis.
Kim Sung-woo is the head of the Environment & Energy Research Institute at Kim & Chang.