By Vijay Jayaraj
Neglectful of the economic wreckage that net zero policies have wrought in the U.K. and Germany, economic powerhouse South Korea has declared war on coal and liquified natural gas (LNG) to pursue more aggressive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Exhibiting a national masochism, Seoul is abandoning the very fuels that built its economy – and along with oil, the entire industrial world. By 2038, the country plans to slash LNG’s and coal’s combined share of power generation from 60% to 20% while boosting the share of so-called renewable sources – like wind and solar – to 33% from today’s 9%.
Until November 2025, things looked more sane as Seoul worked to secure its future. The government boosted investments in regional LNG ventures, expanded strategic petroleum reserves, and directed its energy giants – SK Innovation and KOGAS – to secure natural gas from Indonesia and Australia.
Since then, the government has replaced that playbook with objectives void of reason. The new plan demands a 40% cut in industrial emissions by 2030 (from 2018 levels) and bets the farm on unproven technologies like hydrogen, wind and solar. This is not a rational transition but rather reckless virtue signaling that puts national survival at risk.
Perhaps the most dangerous part of Seoul’s new direction is its projected replacement of LNG with hydrogen. Hydrogen and fuel cells are to contribute 7% of the power mix. This is a delusion, as demonstrated by failed projects that filled 2025’s “hydrogen graveyard.”
Australia’s Central Queensland Hydrogen Project, a $14 billion flagship meant for exports, collapsed this year after government support was pulled. British multinational BP exited the massive 26 gigawatt Australian Renewable Energy Hub in the Pilbara. Energy developer Fortescue, the loudest cheerleader for green hydrogen, walked away from projects in Arizona and its home country of Australia.
Germany’s LEAG project, touted as one of Europe’s largest green energy hubs, has been postponed indefinitely. ArcelorMittal’s green steel plants in Bremen were shelved despite offers of billion-euro subsidies.
In South Korea, the consequences of such foolishness will be lost jobs and shuttered factories. More than 30% of South Korea’s gross domestic product comes from its industrial sector, almost double that of the U.K. The making of steel, petrochemicals and semiconductors requires constant, stable power, which weather-dependent wind and solar cannot provide.
Introducing “green” energy into power grids forces industries to pay the additional costs of backup electricity sources or worse, to curtail operations at factories. We already know how this movie ends, having watched it play out in Europe.
Germany, the continent’s model of green virtue, finds itself deindustrializing – at a rate of 4.5% in 2024, on par with a multi-year downward trend. The same year, the U.K.’s industrial energy consumption fell by 1.2% from 2023 to record what the government notes was “the lowest industrial consumption for over 50 years.”
The Bank of England has warned: “Net zero policies are slowing the global economy.” The World Bank predicts that “the 2020s will be the weakest decade for global growth since its records began in the 1960s.
Whether this decline is by design or daft incompetence, the effects are predictable. In a renewables-dominated Korean grid, bulk material industries like POSCO’s steel mills and Lotte’s petrochemical plants could be the first casualties, competing as they do on razor-thin margins.
The approval of the Saeul-3 nuclear reactor in South Korea and the advance of small modular reactors are positive signs. Nuclear power is the only non-fossil source that offers the energy density and reliability that an industrial economy needs. But let’s be real: Nuclear plants cannot be put into operation in sufficient numbers fast enough to replace the massive hole the government is digging by slashing the use of fossil fuels.
It is not too late to reverse course. South Korea became the “Miracle on the Han River” by ignoring ideological fads and focusing on ruthless economic efficiency. The question Seoul must answer is whether it will govern for its citizens or surrender its sovereignty to an international pseudo-scientific collaboration of ideologues that benefits neither workers nor manufacturers.
Nor, for that matter, the planet the cult purports to be saving.
Originally published in California Globe on January 21, 2026.
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.
None of this would be an issue if crappy government would stop thinking they know what is best for us. They know nothing.
It’s nothing to do with that, it’s following the WEF 2030 reset that matters to Starmer.
Any government that declares a nett zero or equivalent should be made to declare the energy mix and where it will come from.
Any mention of unicorns or technology yet to be commercially/profitably developed should result in the immediate cancellation of the scheme and the expulsion of it’s proponents.
Any government that declares a net zero or equivalent has either gained power by voter fraud and corruption or worse, democratically elected. As such, they can’t be made or forced to do anything. It’s not about sane energy policy, it’s about power and control.
Realism suggests we stay with coal or go nuclear, any thing else is throwing good money after bad.
Why not natural gas?
(If available)
(And Realism supports hydro where available too)
“Natural Gas” is a fossil fuel and burning it gives off emissions, as for “Hydro” historically it costs a fortune to install and it is likely there will be a water shortage in the future.
Also very hard to get decent new hydro developed.
Terrain, Rainfall etc need to be conducive to large capacity, tall dams…
… and the greenies fight tooth and nail against any sort of hydro development…
… and actually wanting to remove perfect good dams.
Does hydro make water unusable for something else?
I thought the potential energy of water at one height was converted to electric energy by using the kinetic energy of its fall to a lower height to turn a rotor. Nothing about that preoces hurts water – maybe we should strap tiny safety hats on the molecules?
It’s like every other country outside the US is moving to renewables. Like, it’s a sane idea or something.
Developing countries have no interest in using renewables to power their economies. They want cheap reliable power to build up their economies. That is why there are 1082 coal plants being built round the world.
https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/graphic-the-world-has-1082-new-coal-power-plants-under-construction-and-in-development/
690 GW globally:
484 GW in China
120 GW in India
Both countries saw a decline in power generated by coal in 2025.
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
India’s electrotech fast-track: where China built on coal, India is building on sun
Science’s 2025 Breakthrough of the year
You are so gullible it’s breathtaking.
BEIJING – China’s coal output rose to a record in 2025, statistics bureau data showed on Monday, as lower domestic prices prompted buyers to cut imports and rebuild stockpiles with cheaper local supply, although the rise was limited by regulator efforts to curb production growth.
Production in 2025 reached 4.83-billion metric tons, up 1.2% from 2024, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.
More ample domestic supply – a reversal from the coal and power shortages China experienced a few years ago – also encouraged power plants to source better quality coal, said Peng Chengyao, head of APAC power and renewables research at S&P Global Energy.
In H1 2025, 21 gigawatts (GW) of coal power were commissioned, the highest amount in the first half of the year since 2016, with projections for the full year exceeding 80 GW.
This increase in commissions follows on the tail of the 2022-2023 coal power permitting surge that saw two new coal projects permitted per week, on average, totalling more than 100 GW of coal power approved per year.
This trend will likely continue into 2026 and 2027
It’s like peak Déjà vu all over again.
With respect, please keep in mind that you can’t have a rational conversation with irrational people. You’re wasting your time and giving MyLusernameRetarded more attention than it deserves.
Just making sure other people know the reality.
b2k reply verified true and reflects the situation more accurately.
“Both countries saw a decline in power generated by coal in 2025.” is … not very honest.
Citing “CarbonBriefs” who are a radical climate propaganda group who totally depend on income from the climate scam.. That is funny !!
As for India, wind and solar are a complete afterthought.
COAL RULES THE ROOST BY FAR and is climbing rapidly
India commission 20 new COAL fired plants in 2025, totalling 14GW.
The government is also considering extending the coal power capacity expansion deadline from 2035 to at least 2047, potentially nearly doubling the current coal capacity to boost energy security and meet surging demand.
BTW, it wasn’t wind and solar that caused a slight drop in 2025 in India’s coal fired electricity, it was an early monsoon that curbed demand and lifted hydro supplies.
COAL capacity continues to expand.
And just think. In 15 or 20 years we can do this all over again. Normally plants work for 60 to 80 years. So where is all of this long term planning? China is in it for the moment, not long term unless they build lots of nuclear.
I remember during GWB’s first USA president term China was supposed to be starting lots of nuclear plants. Did they build them?
Once China get the modular construction of their HTR-PM peddle bed reactors how they want it, I think we will see a number of them built.. They built the first fuel processing plant much larger than for one or two power stations.
” Both countries [ China and India ] saw a decline in power generated by coal in 2025.”
See my comment under the “Honeywell CEO … ” article (direct link) responding to a couple of related questions you asked there.
The graph from that post is (hopefully !) included here for easy reference :
Electricity generation from coal in China, at least, levelled off during 2025, it didn’t “decline”.
Thanks, best answer by MBLR.
I have a strong suspicion that declining demand in the industrialized West for turbines and solar panels is causing China to consume more of its renewables output — I mean this is the country that has built empty cities, and increases EV production despite a growing inventory of unsold vehicles, just to maintain the illusion of prosperity.
Possibly many that can afford it. These are beginning to realise the impracticality of it, and are transitioning to gas and nuclear, however. It’s still going to ba a slow expensive slog to minimise the damage that renewable energy systems have wrought so far, however.
Then there’s poorer countries. They’re going hell for leather for fossil fuels, because it’s all they can afford.
Then there’s the most populous countries.
China is ramping up coal like it’s going out of fashion, largely to build shonky renewable energy systems and electric vehicles for richer countries to spend their borrowed money on. Good economic sense.
India is just not stupid, and is building coal almost as fast. And they’ve got more sunshine than any other country, probably including Australia.
Talking of Australia, we do have enormous amounts of sunshine. And it’s almost completely useless because it’s not possible to save it until it’s needed. They’re even resorting to forcing electricity generators to give away energy during the day (when we don’t want it). Ho hum.
So there we have reality. It beats fantasy every time.
You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
Robert M Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance pt. 2, ch. 13
Every other country is not ‘moving to renewables’. There is no energy transition. The net zero mania has been mostly confined to the English speaking world, The US has now dropped out of it. China and India were never in it.
Canada? Do some research. Germany? Backpeddling.
The UK is atill going at it hell for leather. But even there its becoming admitted that its not going to work, the goals are impossible to meet and unaffordably expensive anyway. Its already widely admitted in the UK that even were they achievable they would have no effect on the global climate, and climate has now vanished from public debate as a justification for net zero.
The only way the UK is going to keep on its present path is to cancel elections so Reform cannot get in, and to use the various hate speech regulations to prevent public dissent. Watch out when you do that. They may seem a quiet and polite country, but they can turn on a dime.
No, its dead Jim. The thing that is sinking climate alarmism is the political and technical impossibility of the dream of moving everyone to the electric society and basing supply on intermittent sources. That is failing wherever its being tried as transition. Of course countries can install and have installed large amounts of useless wind on top of their reliable power sources. That you can do. What you cannot do, and what that is not, is transition. The failure is taking climate alarmism down with it.
Literary reference from 1974! Nice one, and still relevant.
Plenty of countries say they’re moving to renewables, but most still rely heavily on fossil fuels, especially for baseload power.
Even in Europe and Asia, coal, gas, and oil remain major parts of the energy mix.
Ambition is high, but actual transition is uneven and much slower than the headlines suggest.
And of course, few countries would move voluntarily towards unreliable sources of energy without the idiocy of their governments.
“All the popular kids are vaping, so it must be ok”.
Explain how you would supply energy to a modern society when it’s dark, and there is no wind. I can wait.
Wind and solar are only a small percentage of electricity.
The propaganda includes Hydro, (except when it doesn’t want to.)
Dispatchable sources Coal, Oil, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear are by far the majority of global electricity supply
graph didn’t attach
Get lost smelly troll.
Myusernamereloaded performs a useful function. Refuting its claims is informative.
No, Milo. Let’s keep him her it around. It’s good to know what’s going through the minds of the lunatic fringe.
Usually I -1 insults but “smelly troll” was funny.
re: “Like, it’s a sane idea or something.”
Look up: Tulip mania (i.e. tulip bub mania)
A number of factors entered into the formation of the mania now termed “Tulip mania.” Appeal to basic human emotions, herd behavior and social influence were prominent factors, kinda like the buy-into ‘green’ energy sources (aside from the financial grift side of things.)
Why did so many people believe in the green dream of energy utopia? The answer lies partly in psychology, the FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) effect → governments, people jumped in because they fear being left behind. It’s a reminder of how human psychology can drive institutional thought to irrational heights.
Well, for some, it was pure ignorance- they didn’t know that the world has always had floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires and that the sea has been rising for millennia. Including too many purported intellectuals.
Excellent- and when all their economies go down, America’s will be booming- it’ll be back to being the work shop of the world.
And once again MyLusernameRetarded comes along with what he thinks is a pithy and cutting remark but just showcases his lack of self-awareness and stupidity.
Then again, he’s probably smarter than most of us because he’s probably being paid by every downvote he gets (dang, I just earned him more money).
After perusing the replies above, your hands must be pretty full of your ass by now.
Belief in “net zero” is like some kind of mind virus from one of those cheap sci fi movies.
Fossil fuels are a gift from God that make possible our modern way of life.
It looks like they decided to approach the reunion of Korea from an unexpected angle.
“The new plan […] bets the farm on unproven technologies like hydrogen, wind and solar.”
They are not unproven, they are proven false. Wind and solar are not additive sources of electricity for a grid, they are proven parasitic sources because they are so unreliable and unstable that costly backup and grid modifying actions are necessary each time a watt of such power is placed on a grid. Hydrogen is proven unsuitable as an energy transfer medium because of its well known and proven shortcomings including high cost, low energy density, difficulty of containment, explosiveness – it explodes in air at between 4% and 75%, and many others. Yes, hydrogen is used in some industrial processes, but with great care.
Someone should have warned them not to drink the Klimate Koolade, even if it’s free, and tastes good.
The plans will become known as the Kim Jong Un Protocol.
Has the wind carried our virus to them?
Now, I know what you’re thinking, and shame on you. Just because NK happens to have tanker loads full of Klimate Koolade lying about does NOT mean they gave some of it to SK. Tsk tsk.
Make that “FORMER economic powerhouse, South Korea.”
So, the mind virus spreads; What used to be practical, engineering-driven policy has morphed into the touchy-feely of good intentions. My Mom had a repeated saying (seen elsewhere as well): “The road to h3ll is paved with good intentions.”
Which brings mind to this next bromide: Anything that you weren’t talked into it is likely you can’t be talked out of either. Meaning, this net zero thing is an article of faith among the ‘policy’ and opinion makers and shakers, and sans logic and engineering backgrounds ANY verbiage addressing their focused mania to obtaining their perceived nirvana (scratching that proverbial itch that cannot be satisfied) is doomed (i.e. they can’t be talked out of it, this net zero mania.)
The more some nations give up ff the better- leaving more for the rest of us. And when their economies collapse, America’s will be booming.
The only thing more destructive to human prosperity than net zero, is, perhaps, a true shooting war.
The new government of South Korea is pro-China and was in fact installed with China’s help in the blatant theft of the recent election.
We should not be too surprised if the new pro-Chinese South Korean government ends its formal alliance with the United States and either becomes formally neutral in the region or else enters into an economic and political alliance with China.
One outcome of that possible alliance with China might be a South Korean decision to end support for its own nuclear industry, thus eliminating South Korea’s strong competition with China in the nuclear reactor export market.
NK is in a different position than USA and the Euro countries because they don’t have the same access to natural resources.
“As of 2024–2025, South Korea’s primary electricity sources are a mix of coal, nuclear, and natural gas, with each contributing roughly 25-33% to the total generation mix. Coal remains a dominant, though decreasing, source, while nuclear power is being actively expanded, and renewable energy (mainly solar) is growing but still represents a smaller share.”
Plus
“South Korea’s primary coal import sources in 2024–2025 are Australia, Indonesia, and Russia, which collectively supply the vast majority of its needs.”
Equals
Renewables, with all their un-economical aspects for USA, are _slightly_ better in SK because SK has to import from other nations where USA can dig up its own.
What I don’t see in these comments is the recognition of the impact AI datacenters will have on the energy mix. Asian countries are building hundreds of datacenters. Renewables won’t provide reliable power, and take years to build. Nukes take even longer. Nat Gas would require tens or hundreds of miles of new pipelines if a source is even available. Coal colliers and transport trucks for coal are available, and new plants can be built within the timeline. That is why every Asian country but SK are building coal generating plants. And I suspect SK will soon join in.
National insanity is difficult to cure………