Four distinct seasons poised to disappear

Kim Sung-woo

By Kim Sung-woo

• Published Jan 11, 2026 4:30 PM KST

Last month, the Korea Meteorological Administration issued a warning that resonated far beyond the scientific community, touching the hearts of a public that has long taken its “four distinct seasons” for granted. According to the “Climate Change Analysis Report of Korea (1912–2024),” a comparison between the early 20th century and the most recent three decades reveals a dramatic shift: Summer has expanded by 25 days, while winter has shrunk by 22 days. For many Koreans, the data provides sobering numerical evidence for a phenomenon we already feel: Our longest season is no longer the crisp, snow-covered winter, but the sweltering, humid summer.

The outlook for the future is even more chilling. Using the recently launched “Climate Change Situation Map” to analyze Seoul’s projected seasonal shifts, researchers found that by the end of the century (2080–2100), summer is expected to expand from its current 127 days to a staggering 188 days. In this scenario, summer would consume more than half the year. Conversely, winter is projected to dwindle from 102 days to a mere 12, effectively facing extinction. This is not a “worst-case” fringe theory; it is a forecast based on current trends. It warns us that if greenhouse gas reduction is not aggressively pursued, the restorative cycle of the four seasons — the very rhythm of Korean life — will become a relic of the past.

Regulatory tightening and corporate burdens

To stem this tide, the Korean government recently finalized its 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution, setting a target to reduce carbon emissions by 53–61 percent compared to 2018 levels. This is an ambitious leap, signaling a transition from “encouraged” participation to “mandatory” compliance. Furthermore, the government has moved to enforce reductions among high-emitting industries by drastically reducing emission allowances for the 2026–2030 period. By notifying 772 major companies of these stricter caps, the country has effectively placed a price on every ton of carbon that exceeds the limit.

Korean enterprises now find themselves in a precarious position. They must shoulder unprecedented reduction mandates at a time when the domestic and global business environments are at their most volatile. High interest rates, supply chain disruptions, and sluggish demand have already strained corporate balance sheets. Adding a multi-billion dollar carbon reduction mandate to this mix creates a historic challenge. As a consultant on corporate climate strategy, I have witnessed a sharp increase in inquiries from executives who are no longer asking why they must act, but how they can survive the transition.

Three pillars of carbon reduction

Companies are currently evaluating three primary levers for reduction. First, is reduction technology technologies like hydrogen utilization or carbon capture, utilization and storage. The challenge is that the most cost-effective measures, such as basic energy efficiency, have already been exhausted. Future reductions require expensive, high-frontier technologies whose commercialization timelines remain uncertain. Second is a renewable energy transition that involves shifting away from the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s grid power toward power purchase agreements with renewable developers or direct investment in renewable projects. Here, the core decision making criteria are the long-term price forecasts for renewable energy versus standard industrial electricity rates. The third measure is carbon credits and offsetting. Companies can offset their emissions by purchasing credits on an exchange or securing them through external reduction projects. However, this is often viewed as a secondary measure due to market volatility, the complex certification process for external projects and the persistent risk of “greenwashing” allegations.

Corporate paradox

There is a fundamental contradiction in the current landscape where companies are being asked to make their most expensive capital investments in carbon reduction precisely when internal resistance to costs is at an all-time high due to the economic downturn. This explains why many firms are leaning toward reduction methods with short-term financial benefits or are pinning their hopes on government subsidies.

Furthermore, while the U.S. and Europe have shown signs of softening their climate policies recently, Korean companies — deeply embedded in global supply chains — face increasing pressure from international clients to meet even higher standards. This creates confusion about strategies, with firms questioning why they must act so aggressively while the global policy landscape fluctuates.

Strategic recommendations for a sustainable future

Greenhouse gas reduction is no longer a matter of choice; it is a mandate for survival. To balance economic reality with environmental necessity, companies should consider the following data-driven approaches. They should utilize patent data to identify technologies that simultaneously reduce carbon emissions and lower operational costs. Data can also help predict commercialization windows, thereby de-risking investments and improving returns on investments.

Companies should also secure a preemptive position in the low cost renewable market as government supply increases. By analyzing the long-term correlation between electricity rates and carbon credit prices, companies can better justify the long-term utility of these investments to internal stakeholders.

In terms of carbon credits, companies should focus on high-yield external projects within both domestic and global supply chains to maximize credit yields per dollar invested. Additionally, companies should adopt financial hedging strategies using the carbon derivatives markets that are set to launch soon. For example, utilizing information technology-driven energy efficiency projects in buildings or factories can achieve both cost savings and credit generation with minimal upfront capital.

Whether these strategies can fully restore our disappearing seasons remains uncertain. However, since the demand for greenhouse gas reduction is now an external force beyond corporate control, we must focus on reducing the cost burden and increasing the investment returns of these initiatives. Only when corporate reduction efforts are financially sustainable can we hope for the sustainability of the four seasons on the Korean Peninsula.

Kim Sung-woo, head of Environment & Energy Research Institute at Kim & Chang, is a member of the National Climate Fund management committee.