Global warming is a critical issue that requires unified global action. Each country adopts different strategies based on its economic situation, energy structure, and political will. This article compares the global warming response levels of the European Union (EU), the United States (USA), and South Korea, exploring the policies each region implements and the outcomes they achieve.
1. Proactive Response of the European Union (EU)
The European Union is one of the most active regions in the world in responding to climate change. With the “European Green Deal,” the EU aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and is making massive efforts to reduce carbon emissions across energy, transportation, and industry sectors. Through its Emissions Trading System (ETS), the EU controls emissions based on market principles and has set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The EU also leads in renewable energy expansion, steadily increasing its reliance on solar and wind power. In the automobile sector, the EU plans to ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 and transition to electric vehicles. With strong policy foundations and high civic awareness, the EU is often cited as a model example of effective climate action.
2. Policy Shifts and Challenges in the United States
The United States, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, is heavily influenced by political dynamics in its climate response. During the Trump administration, the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, representing a step back. However, under President Biden, the country rejoined the agreement and is pushing forward proactive climate policies. The Biden administration passed the “Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),” injecting massive funds to support clean energy industries, expand electric vehicle adoption, and develop carbon capture technologies, all aiming toward carbon neutrality. Nevertheless, with individual states having different energy policies and the fossil fuel industry still holding significant influence, the U.S. faces structural challenges in achieving a full transition. While federal initiatives are strong, political polarization and industrial resistance mean that meaningful reductions in emissions may take more time.
3. South Korea’s Response and Remaining Tasks
South Korea has achieved rapid industrial growth, but this has also resulted in high carbon emissions. The government has declared a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and raised its 2030 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to align with international standards. However, Korea still has a relatively low share of renewable energy and relies heavily on coal-fired power plants, indicating a structural shift is needed. To address this, the country is expanding wind and solar power, developing hydrogen energy technologies, and improving efficiency in buildings and transportation. A Carbon Neutrality Commission has been established to coordinate policies, while businesses are encouraged to adopt ESG practices to boost private sector participation. Still, public awareness, political consensus, and resistance from traditional industries remain key obstacles to overcome.
The EU is strong in institutional leadership and public participation, while the U.S. is leveraging its technological innovation and capital to drive transition. South Korea is in the early phase of change but is making rapid efforts to meet global standards. Each country responds under different conditions, and future cooperation and shared goals will be essential in tackling the climate crisis together.