Loading Data
Please wait a moment...
Update Cal.
2026.08
02
Sun
03
Mon
04
Tue
05
Wed
06
Thu
07
Fri
08
Sat
Update Calendar
2026.08
31
Fri
01
Sat
02
Sun
03
Mon
04
Tue
05
Wed
06
Thu
07
Fri
08
Sat
09
Sun
10
Mon
11
Tue
12
Wed
13
Thu
Loading Data
Please wait a moment...
Morning features and interviews. A morning story over a cup.
Each year, the market value of unsold inventory that the domestic fashion industry sends to incinerators is estimated at approximately ₩1 trillion. Under the pretext of preserving brand exclusivity, the choice to burn rather than dump at bargain prices had become entrenched as a standard practice. However, such logic is becoming difficult to sustain. Under the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), the disposal of unsold clothing, clothing accessories, and footwear by large enterprises within the EU is, in principle, prohibited. The EU is signaling that overproduction and inventory destruction can no longer be treated as merely an internal cost issue for companies. The ESPR itself is a regulation that took effect in July 2024, and beginning July 19 of this year, the regulation will start applying to products from large enterprises. While the regulation’s direct scope is the EU market, Korean companies that sell products in Europe or are connected to the supply chains of European brands are not exempt from its influence.The Fashion Industry Will Feel the Regulatory Shift Through ESPRESPR is the EU’s core product regulation established for the transition to a circular economy. Its fundamental direction is to impose sustainability requirements across the entire life cycle of products — from the design stage before a product enters the market, through use, repair, reuse, recycling, to disposal. Before ESPR took effect, there was the Ecodesign Directive enacted in 2009. While that directive primarily dealt with energy efficiency standards for energy-related products, ESPR significantly broadens the scope of application. With the exception of certain categories such as food, feed, and pharmaceuticals, nearly all physical products placed on the EU market may become subject to product-specific delegated regulations in the future. [Key contents of the Ecodesign Regulation © Korea Energy Agency]While ESPR sets a comprehensive regulatory framework that applies across industries, the specific prohibition on the disposal of unsold textile and footwear products by fashion large enterprises has begun to take effect, making the fashion industry the first to directly experience the regulatory signal.Three Changes Beginning July 19The first change that will apply most directly to large fashion enterprises within the EU starting July 19 is the ‘prohibition on the disposal of unsold inventory.’ Of course, there are limited exceptions. Exceptions may be recognized in cases such as safety reasons, products that are severely damaged and unusable, or counterfeit goods that should not be circulated in the market. To apply an exception, companies must retain documentation proving the grounds for the exception for five years. It would be difficult to effectively maintain existing incineration practices through the exception clause.Second, the disclosure burden regarding the treatment of unsold products is increasing. ESPR requires companies to disclose the quantity, weight, reason for disposal, and treatment method of unsold consumer goods that are discarded. Large enterprises are already within the scope of this disclosure obligation, and from 2027, reporting must be conducted in a more standardized format.Third, preparations surrounding the Digital Product Passport (DPP) are gaining momentum. DPP is a system that digitally exposes sustainability-related information such as raw materials, composition, repairability, and recycling information of products. Its purpose is to enable consumers, repair shops, recyclers, and regulatory authorities to more easily access product information. Companies are now at the stage where they must begin organizing their supply chain data collection systems to prepare for the phased implementation of DPP requirements. [ESPR Implementation Timeline and Key Phases © TÜV Rheinland Official Website]Challenges for Korean Fashion Companies in EuropeESPR targets products sold within the EU. Domestic companies that directly export clothing or footwear to the EU, as well as suppliers that provide fabrics, subsidiary materials, or finished products to European brands, may fall under its direct or indirect influence. The key is not ‘whether you are a Korean company’ but ‘whether your product is placed on the EU market.’According to Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment statistics, domestic clothing waste generation exceeds 110,000 tons annually. Clothing incineration or disposal occurring within Korea is not directly subject to ESPR regulation. However, for companies supplying products to the EU market, domestic production, distribution, and inventory handling practices are highly likely to become subject to gradual scrutiny. This is because once DPP is fully implemented, product data will connect the entire life cycle — from raw material sourcing, manufacturing, and distribution to use, repair, and recycling. [Poster for LF HAZZYS’s first upcycling project, the ‘Rework Collection’ © LF]In response, the government and industry are also beginning to prepare. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and related agencies are operating pilot projects and consultative bodies for DPP preparedness, while discussions on inventory management, recycling, and data standardization continue within the textile and fashion industries. Examples linking inventory and circularity are emerging — such as the Rework Collection, an upcycling project launched by LF HAZZYS in 2023, and Kolon FnC’s expansion of its secondhand fashion platform. However, responding to the unsold clothing disposal regulation may be an even more challenging task than DPP preparedness. While DPP is a matter of organizing data, the prohibition on inventory destruction requires transforming production volumes, sales strategies, discount policies, resale channels, and recycling infrastructure — this is closer to an adjustment of the fashion business model itself.ESPR: An Export Industry Issue Beyond FashionThe scope of ESPR does not stop at fashion. The European Commission is progressively presenting a timeline for adopting product-specific delegated acts through the ‘2025–2030 Working Plan.’ The adoption of the delegated act for steel is scheduled for 2026, followed by textiles and clothing, aluminum, and tires in 2027, furniture in 2028, and mattresses in 2029. This is why the ESPR response is not merely about whether unsold clothing can be burned. As delegated acts accumulate, how transparently Korean export companies manage their product data and how they collect and verify environmental information across their supply chains will become a prerequisite for accessing the EU market. The regulatory clock is already ticking. by Editor L
‘B Corp Certification’ is a global certification and corporate movement that recognizes businesses prioritizing social and environmental responsibility beyond profit-seeking. Currently, over 10,900 companies across more than 100 countries and 160 industries have obtained B Corp Certification. In South Korea, around 30 companies, including Toss Bank, DLG Law Firm, and Impact Square, are listed as B Corp Certified companies.B Lab, the global nonprofit organization that operates B Corp Certification, unveiled its newly revised certification standards in April 2025. The new standards have been applied to new certification applicants since March 2026 — the seventh revision since B Lab’s founding, and widely regarded as the most significant change in 19 years. B Lab has set ‘System Change,’ centered on continuous improvement and collective effort, as the goal of this standards revision. In this regard, B Lab Korea, B Lab’s Korean partner organization, held a ‘B Corp Certification Information Session’ on June 29 to introduce the new certification standards to domestic corporate representatives. The session covered the revised B Corp Certification evaluation methods, detailed criteria, and their significance.[B Lab Korea Executive Director Jeong Tae-eun explaining B Corp Certification at the session © ESG.ONL]All Seven Impact Areas Must Be Passed to Be CertifiedThe core of this certification standard revision is the abolition of the previous composite score summation method. Previously, a company could receive a high overall score by performing exceptionally well in one area, such as environment, which would offset weaker performance in other areas like governance or labor conditions. Under the new standards, such compensation is no longer permitted. Instead, companies must meet detailed sub-performance criteria across seven impact topics: ▲Corporate Purpose & Stakeholder Governance ▲Fair Labor ▲Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (JEDI) ▲Human Rights ▲Climate Action ▲Environmental Management & Circularity ▲Government Relations & Collective Action. Performance in one area can no longer fill the gaps in another. [The Seven Impact Topics of the Newly Revised B Corp Certification Standards © Captured from B Lab Korea Website] Examining some of the key topics among the seven: ‘Corporate Purpose & Stakeholder Governance’ requires companies to act according to a defined purpose and establish governance that monitors social and environmental performance. ‘Fair Labor’ addresses quality jobs, fair wage practices, and reflecting worker feedback in decision-making. ‘Climate Action’ requires establishing plans that contribute to limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and for large corporations, includes greenhouse gas emissions and Science Based Targets (SBT). ‘Government Relations & Collective Action’ covers corporate efforts to work collectively to promote systemic change. Beyond Regulatory Compliance, Toward Substantive ActionThe backdrop of this revision is the regulatory environment. The new standards were developed in compliance with the EU’s ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive,’ scheduled to take effect in September 2026. This regulation prevents companies from engaging in greenwashing, such as unsubstantiated eco-friendly advertising. Amid the global trend of tightening greenwashing regulations, B Lab has set a direction through the new standards for companies to go beyond regulatory compliance and take substantive action on social and environmental issues. Companies that have received B Corp Certification must continue to demonstrate compliance with the standards and show improvements at each evaluation cycle. [Billy Hanafee, B Lab Global Certification Operations Strategy Lead, explaining the new B Corp Certification standards © ESG.ONL]The more stringent performance criteria in the B Corp Certification process may pose a burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). For companies with limited personnel and budgets, evaluating and meeting criteria across all seven areas is challenging. Reflecting these difficulties, the revision now varies the number of detailed requirements that companies must fulfill, ranging from a minimum of 20 to a maximum of 124, depending on size and industry sector. The structure applies more requirements to large enterprises and a more basic level of requirements for SMEs first. If we compare B Corp Certification to a corporate ‘health check-up,’ this revision can be seen as having increased the number of check-up items, while the application of those items can now be adjusted to fit the company’s weight class. Beyond just B Corp Certified companies, any company can freely measure its impact performance through the B Impact Assessment platform. The B Impact Assessment is a tool provided by B Lab for measuring a company’s social and environmental impact, evaluating corporate operations and business models across five areas: governance, workers, community, environment, and customers.Amid growing investment demand for ESG-managed companies, expectations for corporate B Corp Certification are also rising. In line with this trend, B Lab is refining its certification standards. As certification strengthens, obtaining B Corp Certification can serve as a competitive advantage for overseas business expansion and investment attraction. At the information session, a B Lab Korea representative emphasized the practical competitiveness of B Corp Certification as a management verification tool, noting that “Korean IT startup Eqpoall was able to gain a high level of trust in the North American market by promoting its B Corp Certification status.” The bar for B Corp Certification has been raised, but the weight of trust in the certification has shifted accordingly. Companies that prove their responsibility across all seven areas and have their implementation consistently verified at each evaluation cycle will serve as the standard demonstrating that B Corp Certification is not a checkpoint but a continuous practice. by Editor L
By 2050, forests aged 50 years or older are expected to account for 72% of South Korea’s total forest area. As a result, the greenhouse gas absorption rate of forests is projected to decline significantly. While the spread of renewable energy and electric vehicles is accelerating reductions in carbon emissions, the absorption sinks that must support those reductions are actually weakening. This is one reason why calls have persistently continued for new carbon sinks beyond existing ones such as forests and vegetation in South Korea’s carbon neutrality reduction strategy. In this context, the ground beneath our feet is now garnering attention as a new carbon sink. Carbon Sinks: Now It’s Soil, Beyond ForestsOn May 21, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment held a kick-off meeting at Sangyeonjae Seoul Station for the ‘Soil-Based Environmental Technology Development Project to Contribute to Achieving the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)’ and announced plans to pursue related research in earnest. This project aims to develop soil carbon absorption and removal technologies suited to the domestic environment. It is also expected to be utilized as a substantive carbon reduction tool, linked to the ‘National Greenhouse Gas Inventory’ — the administrative process for calculating national greenhouse gas emissions and absorption. With this project, the carbon absorption policy that was previously forest-centered is expected to expand to the soil domain. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), soil is considered a larger carbon reservoir than the atmosphere and vegetation, with soil carbon storage at approximately 1,700 PgC (petagrams of carbon), far exceeding the atmospheric carbon storage of 870 PgC and vegetation carbon storage of 450 PgC. The IPCC’s Working Group III Sixth Assessment Report, published in April 2022, emphasized the importance of carbon absorption by introducing the ‘Top 10 Carbon Removal Technologies,’ which included four soil-based carbon absorption and removal technologies.[Top 10 Carbon Removal Technologies © IPCC Working Group III Sixth Assessment Report]Soil Carbon Absorption and Removal Project: What Is Being Researched?In the first year of the project, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment is pursuing research on five technologies, including ▲Biochar Utilization Technology ▲Enhanced Rock Weathering Technology ▲Integrated Impact Assessment Model for Soil Carbon Absorption and Removal. Among these, the most noteworthy technology is ‘biochar.’ Biochar is a compound word of ‘biomass’ and ‘charcoal,’ and is a material produced by pyrolyzing wood, agricultural crop residues, organic waste, etc. at high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. During the production process, carbon is converted into a stable structure, and when applied to soil, it can store carbon semi-permanently for over 100 years. [Effects of Biochar © Korea Biochar Association Official Website]Second, ‘enhanced rock weathering technology’ involves crushing rocks with high calcium and magnesium content and spreading them on soil, where they absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates. The resulting carbonates remain in the soil and oceans, sequestering carbon. Third, in the ‘integrated impact assessment model’ development stage, the effectiveness of soil carbon absorption and removal technologies is scientifically verified, and the environmental positive and negative impacts of the technologies on ecosystems are comprehensively analyzed. The integrated impact assessment model is a key evaluation tool for scientifically verifying greenhouse gas reduction effects. This project is a public-sector technology development initiative, and in the future, institutions or operators designated by the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment will be able to use the developed technologies free of charge.Measurement Standards as Important as Carbon Absorption TechnologyAdvancing soil carbon absorption technology affects not only national greenhouse gas reduction targets but also corporate ESG strategies. As domestic companies prepare for ESG disclosures based on the status of NDC implementation, securing carbon sinks can contribute to enhancing the credibility of carbon neutrality roadmaps. If a company’s soil carbon absorption performance is officially recognized as a greenhouse gas reduction amount, companies could use farmland or idle land to secure greenhouse gas emission credits. However, for this to happen, an MRV system (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) that can incorporate soil-based carbon absorption performance into the national greenhouse gas statistical report must first be established. As soil carbon absorption and emission rates vary significantly depending on regional characteristics and climate conditions, establishing reliable measurement standards is just as important as technology development. [MRV Strengthening Plan © Ministry of Economy and Finance]Until now, carbon reduction strategies have primarily been discussed in terms of reducing emissions. However, this project is significant in that it develops the opposite side — carbon absorption technology. Now, as corporate ESG disclosure obligations are being expanded in stages, securing sink-based carbon performance could serve as a means to fill the gaps in NDC achievement that could not be met through emissions reduction alone. For soil to become a genuine strategic resource for carbon neutrality, technology and institutional frameworks must accelerate together. by Editor L
In November 2025, the U.S. startup Starcloud, backed by NVIDIA, became the first in the world to successfully train and run a large language model (LLM) in space. It ran Google’s small language model ‘Gemma’ on a satellite equipped with the NVIDIA H100 high-performance GPU to generate responses. And half a year later, on June 12, 2026, SpaceX, the space infrastructure company run by Elon Musk, listed on NASDAQ and broke through a corporate valuation of USD 2 trillion (approximately KRW 3,040 trillion). Starcloud’s experiment proved that the most power-hungry chip on Earth can also operate in the vacuum of space. SpaceX has also revealed a vision of converting its currently operating Starlink satellite network into a space-based data center network for processing AI workloads. The possibility of harnessing unlimited solar energy for AI data — currently burdening terrestrial power grids — has now opened up.[SpaceX NASDAQ listing event © Nasdaq Newsroom]Space: The Next Frontier for Data CentersIn the AI era, data centers require high-efficiency cooling systems because they consume massive amounts of electricity, and they must be able to scale rapidly to keep pace with growing demand. However, meeting these conditions on Earth is becoming increasingly difficult. Global data center electricity consumption is projected to double to 945 TWh (terawatt-hours) by 2030, and the share of power consumed by AI-optimized servers is expected to surge from 21% in 2025 to 44% in 2030. Global data center power consumption already exceeds the total electricity use of some smaller nations, and competition to secure suitable sites is intensifying. Google, which once declared it would use only clean energy, officially acknowledged in its 2025 environmental impact report that achieving its goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 has become extremely difficult due to the massive power demand from generative AI. The breakthrough that Big Tech has chosen between energy pledges and AI growth is space. Space meets all three conditions that Earth struggles to fulfill: power, cooling, and scalability. In space, solar power generation is possible continuously without the influence of weather or time zones, and the sun emits approximately 400 trillion watts of energy. For cooling, the cryogenic environment of space holds the potential to replace the complex cooling systems on Earth. Unlike Earth, constrained by site regulations and grid saturation, there are no physical limitations in orbital space. Big Tech Heading to Space, from SpaceX to GoogleAs space emerges as a solution to the AI power problem, the person most aggressively pursuing this vision is undoubtedly Elon Musk. Musk, who founded SpaceX in 2002, expressed his ambition to build AI data centers in space at the World Davos Forum in January of this year, stating, “Thanks to solar energy and the cryogenic environment, operating AI data centers in space would be very low cost.” To realize this, SpaceX merged with the AI startup xAI in February of this year — xAI also being a company run by Elon Musk. At an investor briefing ahead of SpaceX’s listing, Musk outlined plans to combine xAI’s large language model (LLM) and real-time data processing technology with Starlink’s satellite internet network to build a massive AI data center in orbital space outside Earth.[Starlink satellites built by SpaceX © SpaceX Official Website]That said, space data centers are not Elon Musk’s stage alone. In November 2025, Google announced ‘Project Suncatcher,’ a plan to build data centers that directly use solar energy in space. The basic concept is to launch solar-powered satellites into low Earth orbit, equipped with Google’s AI-specific Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) and optical communication links. To this end, Google plans to launch two test satellites with partner Planet Labs by early 2027. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said, “Within ten years, space data centers will become routine.” Thermal Management, Communication Latency, Space Debris… Mountains to ClimbWhile the vision for space data centers is rapidly taking shape, the technical hurdles to overcome are formidable. Space data centers must address four key challenges before they can become a reality: thermal management, radiation resistance, orbital safety, and launch/assembly. While space is cold, cooling electronic equipment is not as straightforward as it seems. Heat can only be dissipated through radiation in the form of infrared, not convection, requiring large, efficient radiators. Starcloud was unable to run its GPU continuously for 24 hours in its first satellite experiment due to overheating issues. Communication latency also needs consideration. Even in low Earth orbit, data round-trip delays can occur. For this reason, space data centers are more likely to be initially used for training large AI models rather than real-time services. The risk of space debris collisions and the impossibility of immediate repairs in case of failure are also challenges that must be resolved.[Starcloud satellite within the space data center © Starcloud Official Website]Space data centers are not merely a technological innovation — they are directly connected to the ESG E (Environmental) agenda. The surge in Big Tech’s carbon emissions is already a major concern for global investors. If space data centers become commercially viable, they could serve as a structural turning point that reduces the fossil fuel dependence of terrestrial data centers and increases the feasibility of meeting climate pledges. On the other hand, new environmental risks are also emerging, such as the space debris problem from mass satellite launches and interference with astronomical observation. In the era when the address of data centers is shifting to orbital space, it is time to pay attention not only to the direction of the technology but also to its pace and manner. by Editor L
The Korea Exchange (KRX) confirmed the regular rebalancing of the Korea Value-Up Index constituent stocks through the Index Operation Committee on May 21, and the results began to be fully reflected in the market starting June 12. With 20 stocks added and 19 removed in this rebalancing, all 100 constituents have now been filled with companies that have disclosed corporate value enhancement plans roughly two years after the index’s launch. The core of this regular rebalancing lies not in the numerical reshuffling itself, but in the shift in the index’s operational direction. The Korea Value-Up Index had only 7 disclosing companies among its constituents when first announced in September 2024. The disclosure ratio steadily expanded thereafter — reaching 25% in December 2024 and 61% in June 2025 — and with this adjustment, it has reached 100%.[Korea Value-Up Index additions and removals © Korea Exchange]Disclosure Compliance Determines the Fate of StocksThis regular rebalancing is the ‘Phase 3’ measure — the final stage of the phased operational plan outlined by the KRX. In Phase 1, which began in 2024, companies that made early disclosures of their corporate value enhancement plans were granted special inclusion, allowing them to remain in the index for two years, thereby encouraging voluntary participation. Starting with Phase 2 the following year, special inclusion was applied to companies recognized as Value-Up Excellence Companies, and incentives such as relaxed evaluation criteria were provided to disclosing companies. Conversely, penalties were imposed on previously included companies that failed to disclose, such as tightened criteria for market valuation and market capitalization. Phase 3, applied this month, constitutes the index centered on disclosing companies, while non-disclosing companies may be preferentially removed.Under this direction, industry-specific performance trends and disclosure compliance determined the fortunes of individual stocks in this rebalancing. In the industrial goods sector, major shipbuilding and power infrastructure companies such as HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering, and HD Hyundai Marine Solution were added in significant numbers. In the IT sector, SK Square and Tes were included; in consumer staples, APR; in healthcare, Caregen; and in finance, NH Investment & Securities — a total of 20 stocks newly entered the index. Conversely, major industrial and IT companies such as Hyundai Rotem, Hyosung Heavy Industries, POSCO DX, and Poongsan, which had recently seen rising stock prices, were removed. A clear signal has been sent to the market that even companies with solid performance metrics can hardly remain in the index without disclosure.Constituent Count from 99 to 100, Market Cap Share Expands to 54.6%The Korea Value-Up Index constituent count had decreased to 99 last December due to the merger of HD Hyundai Infracore, but was readjusted to 100 through this regular rebalancing. After the rebalancing, the market capitalization share of the index constituents relative to the total KOSPI and KOSDAQ market capitalization reached approximately 54.6%. With the large-scale inclusion of key companies from market-leading sectors such as shipbuilding, defense, and IT, the index’s market representativeness can be assessed as having broadened further. The changes will also be automatically reflected in the asset composition of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track the Korea Value-Up Index as their underlying asset. As of the end of March 2026, the total net assets of 13 Value-Up ETFs stood at ₩2.6 trillion, a 439.4% increase from their initial launch. With this reorganization expected to increase the weight of shipbuilding and infrastructure stocks while reducing that of some consumer goods and healthcare stocks, ETF investors’ portfolio shifts also warrant attention. Since its base date of September 30, 2024, the Korea Value-Up Index has recorded returns exceeding the KOSPI’s increase by 31.8 percentage points, driving capital inflows. [Korea Value-Up Corporate Disclosure Status © Korea Exchange KIND]Tax Incentives as a Catalyst for Accelerated Disclosure ParticipationBeyond the phased operational plan, another backdrop to this reorganization is the explosive increase in the number of companies participating in disclosure. With the December 2025 revision of the Special Tax Treatment Control Act, separate taxation was introduced for dividend income from stocks of high-dividend companies meeting certain requirements, excluding it from aggregation with other financial income. Following the revision, disclosure became mandatory for high-dividend companies seeking dividend income tax benefits. Individual shareholders with financial income of ₩20 million or less had their dividend income withholding tax rate lowered from 14% to 9%, and companies could deduct 5% of the excess from corporate tax if their total shareholder return increased by 5% or more compared to the average of the preceding three years.These tax incentives became a decisive driver of corporate participation in disclosure. In March 2026 alone, a total of 409 companies newly disclosed corporate value enhancement plans, of which 405 were high-dividend companies. The cumulative number of listed companies that have disclosed totaled 590, comprising 307 on KOSPI and 283 on KOSDAQ, a sharp increase from 181 at the end of February to 590 in a single month. As the tax benefit requirements for high-dividend companies are linked to the disclosure obligation, value-up disclosure is rapidly establishing itself as essential capital market infrastructure.[Cumulative Trend in Number of Companies Filing Main Disclosures © Korea Exchange ‘Monthly Corporate Value Enhancement Status’]The KRX stated, “We plan to manage the index according to the phased operational plan, aiming to support the spread of a corporate value enhancement culture by constructing the index centered on companies that have disclosed value enhancement plans.” However, while the formal goal of a 100% disclosure system has been achieved, the completion of disclosure does not guarantee the improvement of corporate value. Demands for qualitative criteria such as the substantive depth of disclosure content, the traceability of plan implementation, and whether they are linked to shareholder return performance are emerging as the next challenge. Whether this reorganization prompts additional listed companies to participate in disclosure and how well existing disclosing companies fulfill their promises will be the yardstick for measuring the substantive performance of the Value-Up Program. by Editor L
As the June 3 local elections concluded, thousands of tons of waste were left in their wake. According to the National Election Commission, approximately 1,500 tons of banners were collected nationwide during the 2022 local elections, and a similar volume of banner waste is estimated to have been generated in this June 3 local election. When paper campaign materials are added to the banners, the scale of election-generated waste is far larger than one might imagine. The banners used in elections are not mere pieces of fabric. They are made from polyester fiber derived from naphtha extracted during petroleum refining, coated with synthetic resins such as polyvinyl chloride. Moreover, the mixed structure of ink and coating makes them difficult to recycle.Plastic That Occupied the Streets During the Election PeriodDuring the 2022 local elections, 75% of banners collected nationwide could not be recycled and were incinerated or landfilled. The incineration process also releases hazardous substances. In particular, polyvinyl chloride components produce harmful substances such as dioxins when burned. Carbon emissions from the incineration process are also substantial. Climate Change Action Research Institute Fellow Lee Yoon-hee estimated the carbon footprint of a single banner at 9.38 kg. The analysis found that the raw material usage stage accounts for approximately 70% of total carbon emissions, with the disposal stage accounting for about 30%. In other words, the process of producing and disposing of a single banner emits greenhouse gases equivalent to the amount of carbon a single pine tree absorbs in a year. The cost and administrative burden of banner disposal is also a recurring issue. Under the Public Official Election Act, candidates are required to remove banners after the election, yet in practice, removal is frequently delayed or neglected, leading to a recurring pattern where district and city offices end up carrying out collection and disposal work. Incineration costs reach approximately ₩290,000 per ton. [Waste Banner Collection Point Guide ©Seoul Metropolitan Government Climate and Environment Bureau Instagram ]The Seoul Metropolitan Government established a dedicated waste banner collection point in Seongdong-gu, building a system that collects waste banners from 25 autonomous districts into one location for processing. This raised the recycling rate from the previous 42% to 94%. However, this remains an effort at the Seoul city level and has not led to nationwide adoption. Paper Campaign Materials Discarded Without Being ReadA problem even larger in scale than banners is paper campaign materials. For the 2022 local elections, 580 million copies of campaign materials were mailed, and the paper used for printing materials, ballots, and posters alone amounted to 12,853 tons. Considering that producing one ton of paper requires 17 thirty-year-old trees, this equates to the consumption of over 210,000 trees. Figures for campaign materials used in this June 3 local election have not yet been officially released, but given the more granular candidate and constituency breakdown, the figures are estimated to be similar or larger. The problem is that these materials are discarded without being properly read. In some apartment complex mailboxes across Gyeonggi Province, unopened campaign materials had piled up even after early voting had ended. They were papers that had become waste without ever being read. With smartphone penetration nearing 99%, producing and distributing massive quantities of paper campaign materials is increasingly criticized as inefficient. [June 3 Local Election Paper Campaign Materials © ESG.ONL]The paper used for campaign materials is also difficult to process. Campaign materials often use coated paper that is hard to recycle, and are therefore mostly treated as general waste. This pattern — in which campaign materials produced at enormous expense are incinerated as general waste without ever being properly read — repeats with every election.Discussions on transitioning to electronic campaign materials have been raised multiple times in the National Assembly. In the 22nd National Assembly, three amendments to the Public Official Election Act were proposed, including introducing electronic campaign materials or producing them on recycled paper, but all remain pending in committee. While counterarguments regarding accessibility for the elderly exist, voices calling for a reexamination of the current structure — which insists on full-scale paper distribution in an era of high smartphone penetration — are growing louder.Environmental Responsibility Exempt from ElectionsIn corporate ESG management assessments, waste reduction and resource circulation are key environmental indicators. Companies are required to disclose the recycling rates and treatment methods for their waste and to set reduction targets. Yet the election system itself — which repeatedly produces thousands of tons of plastic banners and hundreds of millions of paper sheets — has no corresponding environmental responsibility standards.[Wonmi-gu Mayor Kim Won-kyung collecting banners after the June 3 local election © Bucheon City Official Integrated Public Relations Portal ‘Saengsaeng Bucheon’]The terms of the 17 metropolitan government heads and 226 local government heads elected in this June 3 local election extend to 2030 — a period that also marks a critical checkpoint for evaluating national greenhouse gas reduction target performance. The paradox of elected leaders who campaigned on climate action pledges having to deal with thousands of tons of waste from day one of their terms was repeated in this election as well. Environmental groups point out that institutional reform is needed so that the National Election Commission, as the authority overseeing elections, also takes responsibility for waste disposal. Amendments to curb the proliferation of banners have failed to pass the National Assembly and remain pending. Unless the system governing election waste changes, the same scene will repeat itself in the election four years from now. by Editor L
If I had a time machine, I would not go to the far future of 2050 but back to 1968. Returning to 1968, I would stand in front of a newsstand somewhere that year and read the articles debating the construction of the Gyeongbu Expressway. During holidays, we worry about traffic jams on the expressway, talk about rest stop food, and check the arrival time shown on our navigation apps. For us today, the Gyeongbu Expressway connecting Seoul and Busan is not the future — it is everyday life.Future Value That Cannot Be Explained by Numbers AloneBut for the people of 1968, the Gyeongbu Expressway was not routine — it was an adventure. Before its construction, questions arose: why build an expressway in a country with so few cars? The national budget was tight, and road pavement rates were low. Opponents of the construction at the time argued that considering Korea’s economic situation and automobile penetration rate, building the Gyeongbu Expressway was neither urgent nor a financially wise decision. With approximately 60,000 vehicles in Korea in 1967 and a road pavement rate of just 8% by 1969, theirs was a reasonable argument. In the January 1968 issue of the monthly magazine Sedae (Generation), then-National Assembly member Park Young-rok of the New Democratic Party expressed the view that “while it is a matter to be resolved in the future, it should not be pursued too hastily.” His argument was that, considering the burden on the people, more urgent problems should be addressed first. Kim Dae-hwan, a sociology professor at Kookmin University at the time, also pointed out that pushing forward a new expressway project not included in the Second Five-Year Economic Development Plan would increase the burden on the national economy and could disrupt the development plan. [Gyeongbu Expressway construction site, 1968 © National Archives of Korea ]It is hard to scoff at the opinions opposing the road construction. Indeed, building a highway costing hundreds of billions of won in a poor country was not an easy decision. It would therefore be unfair to say that all opponents of the Gyeongbu Expressway were short-sighted people who failed to see the future. However, their concerns did not account for a reality that had yet to arrive. The value of the Gyeongbu Expressway cannot be explained at the time of groundbreaking solely by the number of cars traveling on it. It was a road built because there were cars, but it was also a road that summoned the era of automobiles and logistics. No one can refute the fact that the Gyeongbu Expressway, while avoiding overlap with existing railways and national roads, served as the arterial route connecting the capital region, the Yeongnam industrial belt, and the ports of Incheon and Busan, functioning as the backbone of economic development.The Questions Left by a Reckless ChallengeLet us move the time machine a little further, to Pohang in 1970. Similar words were exchanged there. A country lacking iron ore, capital, and technology had declared it would build a large-scale steel mill. Today, we regard POSCO as the foundational strength of Korean manufacturing. But at the time, POSCO’s success was anything but a given. The criticism directed at the steel mill construction back then was even more explicit.Looking back at past debates, prominent economists denounced the steel mill as “uneconomical, a waste of resources, and merely for wartime purposes.” The press argued that it would be better to simply import steel. In the National Assembly, lawmakers questioned why a steel mill with neither raw materials nor a use case should be built, and even criticisms along the lines of “let’s solve the food shortage from the lack of rice first” emerged. [Pohang Steelworks No. 3 Blast Furnace Main Construction © Pohang Museum of History] By the calculations of the time, both the Gyeongbu Expressway and the Pohang Steelworks looked uncertain. The costs were clear, but the benefits were hazy. Everyone could see that investment was needed now, but no one could precisely calculate what industrial landscape that money would create in the future. Perhaps this is the shared fate of ‘things we now take for granted.’ Almost nothing was obvious from the beginning. The Gyeongbu Expressway at first looked like waste, and the Pohang Steelworks at first looked like a reckless gamble. But as time passed, the question itself changed. No longer “Why was it built?” but “What would things have been like without it?”The Cost of Transition vs. the Cost of Delay: Which Is More Expensive?Of course, we must not view this story merely as a tale of success from a bygone developing country. The history of the Gyeongbu Expressway and the Pohang Steelworks also carries shadows: regional inequality, insufficient democratic debate, and the sacrifice of labor. Therefore, when addressing the topic of ‘energy transition’ that Korean society faces today, we need not follow that era’s methods wholesale. Nevertheless, the past cases still pose questions toward the present. Can the infrastructure of the future be sufficiently explained by today’s economic viability alone? Should we expand renewable energy further? How fast must we build transmission grids? How should we reform the electricity market and rate system? The questions are many, and the answers are far from simple. Familiar opposition arguments also emerge: “It is uneconomical,” “It only increases the burden on the public,” “Electricity prices will rise,” “Industrial competitiveness will weaken.” But one cannot say these counterarguments are entirely wrong. [Nicholas Stern’s report ‘The Economics of Climate Change’ © Cambridge University]Energy transition genuinely entails costs. It is not something that ends with merely expanding solar and wind power. Transmission grid construction, electricity market reform, local acceptance, and industrial structural transformation must all move in tandem. Someone must bear the costs, and someone must accept changes to the existing order.If we consider the future, several more questions arise. How much does energy transition cost, and what do we lose by delaying it? This very point was the crux of the argument made by British economist Nicholas Stern in the 2006 Stern Report, ‘The Economics of Climate Change.’ In the report, Nicholas Stern argued that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the economic costs of inaction.Let us imagine someone living in 2050 unfolding today’s newspaper. That person would read the debates surrounding the expansion of renewable energy, the conflicts over power infrastructure, and the various disputes over electricity rates and industrial competitiveness centered on carbon emissions. And perhaps, like us today reading about the 1968 Gyeongbu Expressway debate, they might tilt their head and wonder: “Why was that so controversial?” Of course, we cannot be certain. Energy transition is more complex, and far more stakeholders are entangled in these issues. Still, there is a scene I hope for. When the people of 2050 look back at the past, they will accept the energy transition not as a once-unnecessary fad, but as the ‘obvious choice.’ Just as we now look at the Gyeongbu Expressway and the Pohang Steelworks and think, “Why were they so doubted back then?” — that future generations, looking at today’s debates, might say, “If only they had started sooner.” by Kim Won-sang (Climate Solutions, Media Communications)
Along with mosquitoes, there is one insect that will soon visit us and has appeared more frequently in the media in recent years than perhaps any other: the red-backed hairy fly, better known as the lovebug. This insect, which flies with male and female joined tail-to-tail in mating pairs, was first discovered in Korea in 2015, but it has been at the center of full-scale controversy only since 2022. That year, lovebugs densely blanketed the streets of western Seoul districts such as Eunpyeong-gu and Mapo-gu as well as Goyang in Gyeonggi Province, startling residents. And now, larvae are being discovered as far north as Dongducheon and Yeoncheon at the northernmost edge of Gyeonggi. Public opinion largely regards lovebugs as repulsive due to their distinctive appearance and overwhelming numbers, yet at the same time, they are a part of our ecosystem and are in fact beneficial insects. How can we coexist with lovebugs this summer and in the summers ahead? Let us examine the causes of their mass outbreak uncovered over the past five years of controversy, the debates surrounding them, and approaches for living alongside them. [Lovebug (Plecia nearctica) © National Institute of Biological Resources]Why Have Lovebugs Become So Numerous?Lovebugs are originally insects found abundantly in warm regions such as southeastern China and Okinawa, Japan. Climate change is cited as the main reason for the surge in their population in South Korea, especially in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province, since 2022. As our winters have grown warmer, the survival rate of overwintering larvae has soared, and abnormally high temperatures have accelerated larval growth, triggering mass emergence of adults. At the same time, the habitats of their natural predators — birds, frogs, and spiders — have been destroyed. In these circumstances, Korean cities have become an ideal environment for lovebugs. Urban heat island effects have made city centers even hotter, and artificial lighting attracts them. The lovebug’s own characteristics have also played a part. They mistake the smell of automobile exhaust for the smell of decaying leaf litter that their larvae feed on, and their preference for bright colors leads them to cling to urban buildings and walls. Moreover, according to recent research by a Seoul National University team, lovebugs even possess genes for pesticide resistance and heat stress adaptation, making them well-suited to urban life. There is also a paradoxical hypothesis that human pest control itself triggered the lovebug outbreak. Professor Shin Seung-kwan of Seoul National University’s School of Biological Sciences pointed out that the pest control measures implemented during a mass outbreak of stick insects in Eunpyeong-gu from 2020 to 2021 may have been the cause. In the process of controlling the stick insects, other predatory insects were killed alongside them, and as a result, lovebugs — despite being relatively slow insects — were able to survive in large numbers without being eaten.Beneficial Insect vs. Pest: The Controversy Surrounding LovebugsLooking at lovebugs themselves, they are clearly beneficial insects. They decompose organic matter such as fallen leaves and decaying wood to enrich the soil, and as adults, they feed on dew and flower nectar, aiding plant pollination like honeybees. They do not carry pathogens or bite. Regardless of these facts, people’s perception of lovebugs remains negative because they swarm in the thousands, cling to clothing and window screens, and give off an unpleasant odor when their carcasses decompose. Dead lovebugs splattered on cars can turn acidic and corrode vehicle paint, and they cling to storefronts and entrances, disrupting business. According to a survey by the Seoul Institute, 86% of respondents considered lovebugs to be pests, and related complaint calls were said to be paralyzing administrative work. In response, the Seoul Metropolitan Government classified lovebugs not as traditional pests but as ‘epidemic discomfort-causing insects.’[Environmental groups opposing the Seoul City ordinance on mass insect management and control support © Seoul Federation for Environmental Movement]Environmental groups have pointed out that such classification could lead to the logic that ‘any insect that causes discomfort can be controlled, even if it does not harm people,’ potentially resulting in indiscriminate insect destruction. Since it is virtually impossible to control only lovebugs without affecting other species, some argue that enduring a week of summer with lovebugs is environmentally and economically preferable. As indiscriminate pesticide spraying disrupts ecosystems and even affects humans, population management rather than eradication is called for. 2026: The Year New Lovebug Control Methods BeginThe National Institute of Forest Science predicted that the main outbreak period for lovebugs in the Seoul metropolitan area in 2026 would be from June 15 to 29, with peak activity on June 24. In preparation, the National Assembly passed the ‘Partial Amendment to the Wildlife Protection and Management Act’ on May 7, and on May 21, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment announced the implementation of the ‘2026 Lovebug Mass Outbreak Response Plan.’ While adult control measures such as spraying drones, portable insect vacuums, and expanded light-attractant traps are notable, the largest change lies elsewhere: moving beyond the existing approach of eradicating adults toward population control starting at the larval stage. The microbial agent used for larval removal (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, or BTI) had previously been widely used for mosquito larvae. The National Institute of Biological Resources reported that in indoor verification tests targeting larvae of a related species, 98% were killed within 48 hours, and that BTI acts only on fly-order larvae without affecting other plants or animals.[Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment Kim Sung-hwan visiting the microbial agent spraying site at Bulamsan Mountain © Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment] Field experiments are already underway. At Gyeyangsan Mountain in Incheon, where complaints surged last year, 2 kg of control agent was mixed with 1 ton of water and sprayed primarily on moist soil where larvae thrive. At Baengnyeonsan in Eunpyeong-gu, 10 kg of a formulation made by coating corn kernels with BTI was mixed with 1 ton of water and sprayed, with additional kernels scattered. Related experiments are also in progress at Suraksan and Bulamsan in Nowon-gu. Meanwhile, the Korea Forest Service is testing entomopathogenic fungal control agents and plant extract control agents in forests, which showed 90% and 60% insecticidal efficacy respectively in indoor verification tests. However, environmental groups contend that the academic consensus on these control methods is not that they are ‘safe’ but that ‘condition-dependent effects have been observed, so monitoring is required,’ and argue for a more cautious approach. Many agree that indiscriminate chemical pesticide control destroys ecosystems. This is why considerable research and debate continue over whether truly eco-friendly control is possible and what efforts toward ecosystem coexistence should look like. According to a Seoul Institute report, if the climate crisis continues, lovebug habitats are projected to spread across the entire Korean Peninsula by 2070. With lovebugs that are sometimes seen as creepy and unpleasant, we may perhaps have no choice but to continue forming our ecosystem together and coexisting. Now is the time for deeper reflection and more experimentation. by Editor L