South Korea’s Net Zero Boast Crumbles
South Korea must end sacrificing growth, stability, and innovation at the altar of unverifiable climate fantasy, says Vijay Jayaraj. The country remains dependent on fossil fuels by necessity.
Refinery in Ulsan, South Korea. (Source: Shutterstock)
Vijay Jayaraj
4 May 2026
Just a few months ago, South Korean officials were busy boasting about extreme net zero targets. Fast forward to April 2026, and the country is scrambling to secure every vessel load of oil and natural gas available on the global market.
Last November, the Presidential Commission on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth formalized its 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution, pledging a sweeping 53–61% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 levels (742 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent).
The anti-fossil fuel lobby hailed this as proof of Asia’s fourth-largest economy decoupling growth from fossil fuels, an energy source that is often maligned as “poison” and relics of an unsustainable past.
Lifelines
Today, the same fuels are national lifelines. The government’s request to Gulf producers for “steady energy supply and safety assurances for Korean vessels” is a stunning reversal. The contrast could not be starker.
The desperation extends directly to the streets. On April 1, the South Korean government elevated its energy security alert, announcing strict conservation rules to save the fuels they had planned to tax into oblivion. Public-sector fleets — including 1.5 million vehicles across ministries, local governments, and schools — were to face alternate-day driving rules based on license plate numbers.
President Lee reportedly has called Indonesia’s stable LNG (liquefied natural gas) and coal supplies “very reassuring” amid the chaos — a statement that reveals a recognition of fossil fuels as cornerstones of national security.
So, why does a wealthy nation codify a net zero mandate for 2035 and then follow up by begging global suppliers to send massive loads of hydrocarbons?
Unforgiving physics
The answer lies in the unforgiving physics of energy. Wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage cannot power, produce, or sustain a modern manufacturing base. They lack the energy density and reliability required to replace electricity from fossil fuels.
South Korea’s three major refineries — SK Energy’s Ulsan complex, GS Caltex in Yeosu, and S-Oil’s Onsan plant — rank among the largest globally. Combined, they process millions of barrels per day into both fuels and industrial feedstocks exported to nations.
Naphtha from these refineries serves as the vital feedstock for South Korea’s petrochemical plants, the fourth-largest producers of ethylene and propylene on Earth.
These chemicals create the plastics, synthetic fibers, and resins that make up automobile interiors, electronic device casings, clothing fabrics, food packaging, medical tubing, and construction. Without them, South Korea’s export engines for semiconductors, shipbuilding, automobiles, and textiles don’t exist. Oil does not merely move goods; it sustains entire industries.
South Korea’s economy cannot operate without imported hydrocarbons. The country imports more than 97% of its energy, with crude oil and natural gas accounting for the lion’s share. South Korea must spend its resources on diversifying oil and gas imports while expanding LNG partnerships in Southeast Asia, not on unachievable political vanity projects.
Moral imperatives
Climate policies, framed as moral imperatives, cannot withstand the scrutiny of real-world performance. The science around catastrophic climate predictions remains unsettled, and the historical record shows that nations have often thrived during periods of moderate warming. Increased atmospheric CO2 has correlated with agricultural productivity, greening large parts of the world and benefiting food security in South Korea.
The net zero agenda requires a deliberate ignorance of how the modern world functions. South Korea rose from the ashes of war to become a global economic titan because it embraced the power of energy-dense, reliable fossil fuels. Turning away from this proven model in favor of unproven, weather-dependent technologies is a recipe for economic ruin.
South Korea must end sacrificing growth, stability, and innovation at the altar of unverifiable climate fantasy. The country remains dependent on fossil fuels by necessity.
This article was originally published on California Globe on 28 April 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
more news
No Evidence That Weather Extremes Becoming More Frequent or Intense: (1) Heat Waves
In a series of articles on extreme weather attribution, physicist Ralph B. Alexander examines whether observational evidence supports claims that weather extremes are becoming more frequent or intense. Following his previous article on the methodology behind attribution studies, this installment focuses on heat waves and the historical temperature record.
Professor Seok Soon Park: Climate Models Are Fear-Mongering Machines
During a lecture in Oslo on June 30, 2026, Professor Seok Soon Park, a leading South Korean environmental scientist and Clintel Ambassador for South Korea, presented a comprehensive critique of the climate models used by the IPCC. Drawing on decades of experience in environmental modeling, he argued that these models have fundamental scientific limitations and function more as "fear-mongering machines" than reliable tools for predicting future climate.
Henrik Svensmark fired by his university
Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, known for his controversial research on cosmic rays and cloud formation, has been dismissed by his university in Copenhagen after years of internal conflict. In an interview with the Danish newspaper Berlingske, he described the decision as “a death blow” to his research.
