Tainan

Taipei

Taitung

Taichung

Yunlin

Changhua

Chiayi

Hsinchu

Hualien

Yilan

Keelung

Kaohsiung

Kinmen

Lienchiang

Miaoli

Nantou

New Taipei

Penghu

Pingtung

Taoyuan

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

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On July 3, 2025, seven youth climate activists, represented by the Environmental Rights Foundation (ERF), filed an administrative complaint before the Taipei High Administrative Court. They challenge the Ministry of Environment’s promulgation of the Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Target, arguing that it fails to align with Taiwan’s 2030 national GHG reduction goal and does not reflect a carbon budget consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C warming limit. Considering the suspension of the previous constitutional petition due to the political confrontation, the ERF chooses to bring this case to the Administrative Court. The plaintiffs frame the suit as a matter of intergenerational justice, emphasizing the disproportionate climate burden placed on younger and future generations.

Under the 2023 Climate Change Response Act, the Ministry of Environment must issue updated national GHG reduction targets every five years. The agency previously adopted the Phase 1 target in 2018 and the Phase 2 target in 2021 under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act of 2015. On May 6, 2025, the Ministry announced the Phase 3 target, setting a goal to reduce national GHG emissions by 28 ± 2% below 2005 levels by 2030.

The plaintiffs contend that this target is legally deficient and scientifically inadequate. First, the Phase 3 reduction target prescribes only the 2030 goal, and fail to specify annual reduction goal, violating Article 10 of the Climate Change Response Act. Second, they argue that the phase 3 target is inconsistent with the legal target of the 2050 net-zero emissions, fails to incorporate the best available scientific evidence, and neglects recommendations from climate experts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim the Ministry did not adequately conduct public consultation or provide a reasoned explanation of how the Phase 3 target constitutes Taiwan’s “fair share” of global mitigation obligations.

The complaint alleges violations of Articles 1, 5, 6, and 10 of the Climate Change Response Act and asserts infringements of constitutional rights to equality, life, and personal freedom. Plaintiffs request that the Court to annul the Phase 3 target and order the Ministry to promulgate a more stringent, scientifically grounded emissions-reduction trajectory.

The Administrative High Court has not scheduled the trial yet.

On January 30, 2024, a group of 13 petitioners—including two Indigenous people, three farmers, four children, two fishers, and two members of the civil society organization (Environmental Rights Foundation)—filed a petition with the Taiwan Constitutional Court.

They argued that the Legislative Yuan failed to include short- and mid-term Greenhouse Gas emission reduction targets in the 2023 Climate Change Response Act and violate the Constitution. The petitioners made three arguments. First, the Climate Change Response Act fails to include explicit short- and mid-term GHG emission reduction goals, leaving Taiwan without a legally enforceable 2030 emissions target. Second, the Climate Change Response Act fails to specify guiding standards when
delegating authority to the Ministry of Environment to promulgate phase-based GHG reduction targets. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the Ministry of Environment fails to announce the phase 3 greenhouse gas reduction target, thereby undermining Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero objective.

The petitioners claim that the inadequate legislative and administrative action has violated their constitutional right to life, right to health, right to work, right to housing, and property rights. Greenpeace Taiwan and numerous environmental groups support the petition.

In a supplementary brief submitted in April 2024, the petitioners elaborated on the procedural issues. They claimed that the Constitutional Court should review the case, even if it does not meet the requirements of Article 59 of the Constitutional Litigation Act.

It was contended that the petitioners in the present case lacked any meaningful legal remedies according to the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus should be deemed to have exhausted all available avenues of redress. Moreover, Article 59 of the Constitutional Litigation Act contains no exception clause, thereby leaving individuals without recourse in two critical situations: first, where a legal norm infringes upon fundamental rights immediately upon its promulgation and entry into  force; and second, where the legislature’s failure to enact a legal norm results in the violation of fundamental rights. On this basis, the provision should be regarded as unconstitutional. In support of this position, reference was made to several decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court in which the Court admitted cases concerning infringements of fundamental rights arising immediately upon the promulgation and entry into force of legislation.

In arguments submitted in May 2024, the petitioners further elaborated that Article 59 of the Constitutional Litigation Act violates the Constitution, drawing upon comparative references from Germany, South Korea, and France. On the other hand, Article 6 and Article 10 of the Climate Change Response Act (the contested provisions), together with the Ministry of Environment’s failure to establish the third-phase national GHG reduction target, were argued to constitute disparate impact discrimination (indirect discrimination), thereby infringing upon the child petitioners’ right to equality.

The petitioners ask the Constitutional Court to declare: 1) the Climate Change Response unconstitutional for its failure to include a binding 2030 GHG reduction target. 2) The government to establish scientifically and legally robust pathways consistent with Taiwan’s “fair share” of global mitigation efforts. They argue that further delay would irreversibly endanger Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero
goal, with especially grave consequences for younger and future generations. The case invites the Court to align with an emerging transnational jurisprudence recognizing a state duty to act decisively on climate change to protect fundamental rights.

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. 

On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs filed a citizen suit against Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA). The plaintiffs contend that the agency’s Regulation for Large Power Consumers fails to meet the statutory mandates of Taiwan’s Renewable Energy Development Act (REDA) and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act (GHG Reduction and Management Act).

Although Taiwan is not a party to the Paris Agreement, it enacted the REDA in 2009 to promote renewable energy development. In 2019, the Legislative Yuan amended the REDA. Under the Article 12 of the 2019 REDA, large energy consumers must either install specified amounts of renewable power generation and storage capacity or purchase a defined quantity of renewable electricity. The MOEA, authorized to implement this provision, promulgated the Regulations for the Management of Setting
Up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users Above a Certain Contract Capacity (hereinafter, the Regulation for Large Power Consumers) on January 1, 2021.

The contested regulation applies only to power users with a contracted capacity exceeding 5,000 kWh and requires merely 10% of that capacity to transition to renewable energy. Plaintiffs argue that this threshold effectively exempts roughly 90% of large corporate consumers and is inconsistent with Taiwan’s national target of achieving 20% renewable energy by 2025. They seek a judicial order compelling the MOEA to amend the regulation to impose more ambitious renewable energy obligations on major power consumers, thereby accelerating greenhouse gas reductions and combating climate change. According to the plaintiffs, this is Taiwan’s first citizen suit specifically seeking a court-ordered reduction in carbon emissions.

On May 8, 2025, the Taipei High Administrative Court dismissed the complaint on two principal grounds. First, the Court held that neither the REDA nor the Climate Change Response Act grants private parties a legally enforceable right to compel the enactment of specific administrative regulations. Second, emphasizing the principle of “judicial self-restraint,” the Court deferred to the administrative agency’s discretion, reasoning that overturning the regulation could undermine the separation of powers. Greenpeace has appealed this decision and continue to challenge the ruling on both legal and factual grounds.

Geography

Taiwan

Recent cases