South Korea and the United States, two countries on opposite sides of the globe, are wrestling with the future—one through the lens of climate action, the other through the rise of artificial intelligence. This September, both nations found themselves at pivotal crossroads, forced to confront the limits of technology and policy in shaping a sustainable, equitable tomorrow.
On September 19, 2025, the South Korean government took center stage at the National Assembly, unveiling its much-anticipated 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emission reduction targets. This announcement, made during a special committee meeting, wasn’t just bureaucratic routine—it marked a decisive moment in the nation’s climate strategy, with global implications. The 2035 NDC is more than a set of numbers; it’s the linchpin in South Korea’s long-term plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal that echoes commitments made by countries worldwide under the Paris Agreement.
According to the government’s outline, four potential emission reduction targets are on the table, ranging from 48% to 65% cuts by 2035, measured against 2018 levels. The Ministry of Environment, as reported by domestic outlets, explained, “2035 is the midpoint between our 2018 emission peak and the 2050 net-zero vision. The choices we make now will determine the pace and success of our economic and social transformation.” The stakes are high: this midpoint is a crucial inflection point, shaping not only the country’s carbon footprint but also its role in the global fight against climate change.
But as the details emerged, so did the controversy. Critics were swift to point out that the lower reduction targets—48% and 53%—fall short of what’s needed to keep global warming within the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold, the gold standard set by the Paris Agreement. Climate activists, including the youth-led Climate Youth Assembly, staged a press conference outside the National Assembly, demanding the government “fulfill its duty to future generations” and set a minimum 65% reduction target. In a separate demonstration, the Climate Emergency Action coalition echoed these calls, insisting that only a 65% target would align with South Korea’s fair share of the global carbon budget.
The government’s response? Caution, and a heavy dose of pragmatism. Environment Minister Kim Seong-hwan emphasized that “realistic implementation” was the guiding principle behind the NDC process. He acknowledged the “challenging realities of decarbonization,” a refrain that has become common as governments worldwide grapple with the economic and political costs of rapid climate action. The administration, under President Lee Jae-myung, has championed what it calls a “pragmatic” approach to governance, prioritizing solutions that are “practical and results-oriented.”
Yet, as activists and experts have pointed out, there’s a risk that pragmatism becomes a euphemism for compromise. According to Plan 1.5, a non-profit dedicated to climate justice, “The real question isn’t just what’s practical, but what’s necessary. If we don’t set an NDC that aligns with the 1.5-degree target, what kind of world are we preparing for? How will our economy, our industries, and our people—especially future generations—be affected?” The group argues that the only “honest” and “practical” path is to accept the hard choices now, rather than delay them to a future that’s arriving faster than anyone expected.
South Korea’s experience isn’t unique. In 2020, the UK’s Met Office released a “future forecast” for 2050, imagining a world where emissions hadn’t been sufficiently curbed. The result? Soaring temperatures near 40 degrees Celsius, cities sweltering under urban heat islands, and outdoor work becoming nearly impossible. But the real shock came just two years later, when the UK experienced record-breaking heat that eerily mirrored the forecast. As reported by domestic sources, South Korea’s own weather agency had warned as early as 2011 that failure to cut emissions would push the nation’s climate toward subtropical conditions, with average temperatures rising more than 3 degrees Celsius by 2050. Fast forward to today, and Seoul is seeing bananas grow in city parks, while heatwaves and torrential rains have become disturbingly routine.
As the government collects public input and prepares to finalize the 2035 NDC by November, the debate is intensifying. Is it better to aim high, risking economic disruption, or to play it safe and risk a future that’s even more unpredictable? The answer, as always, is complicated—and the world is watching.
Meanwhile, across the Pacific, Americans are wrestling with a very different, but equally defining, technological challenge: artificial intelligence. On September 20, 2025, Axios reported on a new Pew Research Center survey that revealed Americans’ conflicted attitudes toward AI. The findings were striking: while 74% of respondents believe AI should play a significant role in practical areas like weather forecasting, there’s deep skepticism about its place in more personal or value-driven domains.
For instance, 66% of those surveyed said AI should not be involved in matters of love or relationships—think matchmaking or evaluating compatibility. A solid 60% believe government regulation of AI is necessary, reflecting mounting anxiety over who controls these powerful systems. Concerns about employment are also widespread, with 70% of respondents worried about AI’s impact on jobs and 53% fearing that AI will eventually replace human workers. Half of Americans are anxious that AI could erode human creativity, and a similar proportion worry about its effects on meaningful social connections.
The survey underscores a growing unease: Americans are drawing a line in the sand, welcoming AI’s efficiency in science and industry but resisting its encroachment into the messy, deeply human realms of emotion, ethics, and identity. The skepticism goes further—over half of respondents admitted they struggle to distinguish between content created by humans and that generated by AI. Between 2021 and 2023, the share of Americans calling for regulation of AI risks jumped from around a third to nearly half, a trend that shows no sign of slowing.
“People are increasingly worried about the negative impacts of AI,” Axios noted, citing the Pew report. “There’s a sense that while AI can help with the weather or financial fraud detection, it can’t—and maybe shouldn’t—replace human judgment in matters of love, creativity, or governance.”
Both stories, from Seoul to Washington, highlight a common thread: the tension between what’s possible and what’s right. Whether it’s the race to cut carbon emissions or the quest to harness artificial intelligence, societies are being forced to confront uncomfortable questions about risk, responsibility, and the true meaning of progress. The choices made today—by governments, businesses, and citizens—will shape the world for decades to come.
The future, it seems, isn’t just arriving sooner than expected. It’s demanding answers we can’t afford to postpone.