South Korea’s energy transition plan flagged as inadequate response to fossil fuel risks

Greenpeace East Asia said strategy trades coal dependence for expanded LNG capacity rather than renewables.

South Korea's newly announced Energy Transition Promotion Plan is being flagged as an insufficient response to the country's fossil fuel vulnerability, according to Greenpeace East Asia.

The organisation argued that the strategy trades coal dependence for expanded liquefied natural gas (LNG) capacity rather than delivering a genuine shift to clean energy.

The Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Environment unveiled the plan on 6 April, setting a target of over 100 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity and a renewable share exceeding 20% of power generation by 2030.

The plan also maps out the retirement of 40 out of 60 coal-fired power plants by 2040, but proposes retaining 21 coal plants with remaining design life beyond that date as security reserves.

Under the current plan, LNG is set to expand to its largest installed capacity in the country's history — a trajectory the organisation says entrenches fossil fuel exposure rather than eliminating it.

Yeonho Yang, Climate and Energy Campaign Lead at Greenpeace East Asia's Seoul office, said the plan's framing of coal reserves as an energy security measure was particularly alarming.

On transport, the government aims to bring forward a target of 40% of new vehicle sales being electric or hydrogen by 2030, with early electrification focused on police cars, LPG taxis, rental vehicles, and corporate fleets.

Greenpeace argues the measures lack the binding enforcement mechanisms needed to drive a genuine market shift.

Eunseo Choi, Transport Campaign Lead at Greenpeace East Asia, noted that the sector accounts for 26.4% of South Korea's oil consumption, and the absence of clear deadlines for phasing out internal combustion engine vehicle sales means the current approach falls short of reducing road transport emissions.

Choi also flagged the government's temporary fuel tax cut as a regressive measure, arguing it disproportionately benefits higher-income households and that any sunset date should be accompanied by reinvestment of the recovered fiscal resources into renewable infrastructure.