Pingtung

Chiayi

Tainan

Taoyuan

Taipei

Hsinchu

Taitung

Hualien

Taichung

Yilan

Yunlin

Keelung

Kaohsiung

Kinmen

Lienchiang

Miaoli

Nantou

New Taipei

Penghu

Changhua

Taiwan, Province of China

Taiwan

Long-term national GHG emission reduction goal shall be to reduce GHG emissions to no more than 50% of 2005 GHG emission by 2050

Reduce CO2---emissions, so that total emission could return to its 2008 level between 2016 ~ 2020, and further reduced to the 2000 level in 2025

Promote public emission reduction movement, encourage the public to reduce 1 kg of CO2---foot-print per day

Increase the share of low carbon energy in electricity generation systems from the current 40% to 55% by 2025 against a 2008 baseline

Increase the utilization of low carbon natural gas, therefore it could account for more than 25% of power generated by 2025 against a 2008 baseline

Reduce the energy use of governmental agencies and schools by 7% by 2015 against a 2008 baseline

Raise appliance efficiency standards by 10% to 70% by 2011 against a 2008 baseline, and further raise the efficiency standards by 2015

Supplemented by further technological breakthroughs and proper administrative measures, energy intensity will decrease 50% by 2025 against a 2008 baseline

Reform the industrial sector towards a high value-added and low energy intensive structure, so that its carbon intensity could reduce more than 30% by 2025 against a 2008 baseline

Improve energy efficiency by more than 2% per annum, so that when compared with the level in 2005, energy intensity will decrease 20% by 2015 against a 2008 baseline

Renewable energy share in the electricity system 8% by 2025

The rewardable gross capacity of renewable energy is 6.5 million kilowatts to 10 million kilowatts of gross installed capacity by 2029. Upon the rewardable gross installed capacity reaching 5 million kilowatts, the central competent authority shall review the target.

Raise the fuel efficiency standard for private vehicles by 25% by 2015 against a 2008 baseline

On June 5, 2024, a group of 30 petitioners—primarily youth climate activists, academics, and environmental advocates—filed a petition with the Taiwan Constitutional Court seeking a declaration that the central government’s failure to adopt a clear and legally binding 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target violates constitutional rights and obligations. The petition is supported by Greenpeace Taiwan and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.

The challenge targets the Executive Yuan’s “2050 Net-Zero Emissions Target and Twelve Key Strategies,” arguing that the government’s climate roadmap lacks enforceability, scientific rigor, and intermediate milestones. The petitioners allege that this policy vacuum undermines Taiwan’s obligations under the Climate Change Response Act and infringes on constitutional rights including the rights to life, health, work, equality, dignity, and intergenerational equity, as protected under Articles 7, 10, 15, 18, and 23 of the Constitution, as well as constitutional provisions on social justice and environmental protection (Articles 147–153, 171–172).

The April 2024 supplementary brief strengthens the petitioners’ claims by integrating updated scientific evidence from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report and modeling from Climate Action Tracker and Climate Analytics, showing that Taiwan’s policies are inconsistent with a 1.5°C-aligned trajectory. It emphasizes the urgent need for a 43% reduction by 2030 relative to 2005 levels and situates Taiwan’s responsibility within its high per capita emissions and industrial profile. The brief draws on comparative case law from Germany (Neubauer), the Netherlands (Urgenda), Pakistan (Leghari), and others, arguing that constitutional courts elsewhere have recognized that climate inaction violates fundamental rights and that Taiwanese courts must follow suit.

The May 2024 brief further responds to anticipated governmental defenses by rejecting the idea that administrative discretion or legislative delay can excuse omissions that result in structural violations of rights. It offers a detailed interpretation of the Climate Change Response Act, asserting that the statute implicitly requires not only a 2050 goal but also enforceable near-term measures. The brief also introduces evidence from the 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report to demonstrate the inadequacy of deferring meaningful action until mid-century.

The petitioners ask the Court to declare the current lack of a binding 2030 target unconstitutional and to direct the government to establish scientifically and legally robust reduction pathways consistent with Taiwan’s fair share of global climate action. They argue that delay will irreversibly undermine the possibility of meeting the 2050 net-zero target, with especially severe consequences for younger and future generations.

The case invites the Taiwan Constitutional Court to join a growing transnational jurisprudence recognizing the duty of states to act decisively on climate change to protect human rights and uphold constitutional commitments to sustainability and justice.

On June 26, 2024, a group of Taiwanese youth climate activists, represented by the legal team at Taipei’s Environmental Jurists Association, filed an administrative complaint before the Taipei High Administrative Court challenging Taiwan’s national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for 2030. The plaintiffs are the same youth claimants who had previously petitioned the Constitutional Court in a related case contesting the constitutionality and adequacy of Taiwan’s climate targets. Following the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the GHG targets must meet minimum constitutional and human rights thresholds, the plaintiffs have now turned to the administrative courts to directly challenge the specific regulatory action through which the government adopted its Phase 3 reduction goals.

The administrative complaint targets the 2023 decision by the Executive Yuan’s Ministry of Environment to adopt Taiwan’s “Phase 3 Emission Control Targets,” which set an absolute GHG reduction goal of 18.9% below 2005 levels by 2030. The plaintiffs allege that this decision violates the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act and the Constitution of the Republic of China, including Articles 7 (equality), 15 (right to life), and 22 (unenumerated freedoms). They further invoke principles of intergenerational equity and the government’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The plaintiffs argue that the Phase 3 target is neither scientifically adequate nor aligned with Taiwan’s stated goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. They allege that the Ministry’s decision failed to incorporate the best available scientific evidence, did not meaningfully engage with public consultation obligations under the GHG Act, and disregarded expert opinions recommending more ambitious targets. The complaint also asserts that the Ministry did not adequately explain how the selected target would ensure Taiwan’s fair share contribution to global mitigation efforts.

The case draws heavily on climate science, including IPCC pathways consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and argues that the existing 2030 target would allow emissions to continue at unsustainable levels incompatible with Taiwan’s long-term climate commitments. The plaintiffs request that the court revoke the administrative order enacting the Phase 3 targets and order the Ministry to reissue a scientifically and legally adequate emissions reduction target.

To accelerate renewable energy, Taiwan established offshore wind facilities along the coast of Changhua, aiming for 20% renewable energy by 2025 under its 2023 Climate Change Response Act. To protect the installations, the Maritime and Port Bureau issued Navigation Guidelines in 2021 without consulting residents or fishers. These rules imposed three main restrictions: (1) a navigation ban in wind farm channels, (2) a fishing ban in corridors and separation zones, and (3) a mandatory reporting duty for vessels, with fines for violations. Fishers, supported by the Fisheries and Environment Center and the Environmental Rights Foundation, appealed the measures, arguing they unlawfully restricted their rights and were imposed without consultation. Although partly successful on appeal, they pursued an administrative lawsuit to prevent similar future rules.

In May 2025, the court ruled in favor of the fishers and annulled the guidelines. It found that while the Bureau could designate channels under the Navigation Aids Act, it had no authority to impose mandatory reporting or navigation bans with fines. The court also emphasized that comparable international shipping lanes (e.g. Singapore, Strait of Gibraltar) do not prohibit fishing vessels, even under heavier traffic. The restrictions were deemed disproportionate, inconsistent with international law, and imposed without adequate stakeholder consultation.

The decision highlights the tension between Taiwan’s push for renewable energy and the protection of traditional fishing rights. 

Taiwan, Province of China

Recent cases