Experimenting with a Climate and Energy Ministry: Lessons from Germany and Britain

Home > Opinion > Columns

Experimenting with a Climate and Energy Ministry: Lessons from Germany and Britain

Published: 17 Sep. 2025, 00:04

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Ohn Ki-un

The author is an adviser to the Association of Professors for Rational Energy Policy and a former economics professor at Soongsil University.

The government and Democratic Party (DP) have approved a reorganization plan that would transfer most of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’s authority over energy policy to the Ministry of Environment. Under the proposal, the ministry will be expanded and renamed the Ministry of Climate and Energy Environment. Responsibilities for nuclear power and resource exports will remain with the Trade Ministry, but other energy policy functions will move to the new body. It is the first time in 32 years that energy policy will be split off from the Trade Ministry.

The plan faces opposition not only from energy experts but also from lawmakers within the DP, yet party leaders intend to bring it to a vote in the National Assembly on Sept. 25. The need to update government structures in line with changing times is clear. But pushing through a politically charged plan without sufficient public debate risks policy confusion, inefficiency and internal conflict.

A view of the Kori-1 nuclear reactor in Gijang County, Busan. The Nuclear Safety and Security Commission approved its decommissioning on June 26. Korea’s first nuclear power plant, Kori-1 begins full-scale dismantling 53 years after receiving construction approval in 1972 and eight years after its permanent shutdown was decided in 2017. [YONHAP]

Responding to the climate crisis and achieving carbon neutrality are unavoidable national tasks. Still, Korea should advance in step with other major economies, not by rushing ahead in ways that could weaken its competitiveness.

The United States, for example, emits more than 10 times Korea’s annual greenhouse gases, about 6 billion tons. Under U.S. President Donald Trump, Washington moved away from promoting renewable energy and returned to expanding fossil fuel production, reviving the slogan “Drill Baby Drill.” At the same time, it has announced plans to build 300 new nuclear reactors by 2050.

President Lee Jae Myung said during his 100-day press conference on Thursday that Korea’s policy of mixing nuclear and renewable energy "in a rational balance” remains unchanged. Yet by leaving only export policy under the Trade Ministry and shifting construction and operation to the new Environment Ministry, the government raises doubts about whether it intends to place new restrictions on the nuclear sector. Lee’s remark that nuclear plants "take at least 15 years to build and have no sites left for construction" has deepened concern about what critics call a "second denuclearization" policy. At a time when many countries are reviving nuclear power, Korea risks moving in the opposite direction.

Energy policy requires a balance between three pillars: environment, economics and security. But the new plan appears to emphasize environmental regulation at the expense of economic growth and energy security. Combining the roles of promoting and regulating the energy sector under a single ministry creates a structural contradiction. Promotion is meant to encourage investment, research, and expansion of supply, while regulation restricts harmful impacts and enforces public obligations. When one office holds both missions, policy goals can collide and bureaucratic paralysis can result.

Large-scale projects such as power plant construction and grid expansion may stall under tighter environmental regulations. The nuclear industry in particular requires integrated management — from construction and operation to exports and spent fuel disposal. Splitting these responsibilities between ministries would likely produce serious policy confusion. A weaker domestic nuclear industry, constrained by regulation, would also undermine Korea’s export potential.

Germany and Britain offer cautionary examples. In 2021, Germany merged energy, climate and industry into the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection. But soaring energy costs and weakened manufacturing competitiveness forced Berlin in 2023 to transfer climate functions back to the environment ministry and restore the economic affairs and energy ministry.

Britain created the Department of Energy and Climate Change in 2008. The result was power shortages, wholesale price spikes and declining manufacturing competitiveness. In 2023, London reorganized again, reestablishing a ministry centered on energy security. Both cases illustrate the risks of a structure that overemphasizes environmental goals while neglecting affordability and reliability.

The Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates. It's the first and only nuclear plant Korea has built abroad. Korea is currently contending for the nuclear power reactors in Saudi Arabia. [YONHAP]

Energy policy must be treated as a national project for the next century. It cannot be reshaped every time a new administration takes office. During the Moon Jae-in government, the denuclearization policy inflicted heavy economic costs. Plans for new reactors were canceled, reactors still capable of safe operation were closed prematurely and the overall nuclear program was scaled back. The result was mounting pressure to raise electricity prices.

As the reorganization bill heads to the National Assembly, lawmakers must weigh its long-term implications. Careful debate is needed to ensure that reforms strengthen rather than weaken Korea's energy security and industrial competitiveness.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.