공정산업의 탄소상쇄 최적화를 위한 수학적 프로그램을 제안하고 , 이를 이용하여  EU-ETS와 K-ETS의 탄소감축 실 효성을 예측해보았다 . 사례연구에서  EU-ETS는 높은 배출권 가격으로 인해 감축효과 면에서 우수한 성능을 보였지만 배출권의 상당한 축적이 수반되었다 . 배출권은 잠재적 배출이므로 이는  EU-ETS가 불안한 탄소중립으로 가고 있음을 뜻한다 . K-ETS는 배출권 가격이 현재 추세대로만 오른다고 가정하면 감축효과를 보여주지 못했다 . 그러나  K-ETS가 공표된 정책 시나리오대로 운영된다면  2030년에는 배출권 가격과 감축효과 둘 다 EU-ETS의 절반에 근접할 것으로 예 상되었다 . 따라서 미래의  K-ETS는 배출권의 가격과 보유고를 적절히 관리하면서 적당한 감축효과를 낼 수 있을 것으 로 예상된다 . 본 연구 결과는  ETS의 실효성은 감축단가 대비 배출권 가격에 달려있으며 , 따라서 이를 경제적으로 향 상시키려면 감축단가를 낮추는 정부정책이 필요함을 시사한다 . 제안된 최적화 모델은 기업의 순배출 제로 달성을 위 한 최적계획 수립에도 적용할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다 .

A mathematical program is proposed for optimization of process industry’s carbon offsetting, and applied to prediction of carbon reduction effectiveness of EU-ETS and K-ETS. Case study indicates that EU-ETS shows high performance in reduction effect owing to high carbon prices, but entails significant accumulation of allowances. As allowances are potential emissions, this means that EU-ETS is moving toward insecure carbon neutrality. K-ETS fails to show a reduction effect, if the carbon price is assumed to increase just according to the current trend. However, if K-ETS is operated according to the stated policies scenario, its 2030 status is predicted to get close to half of EU-ETS in terms of both carbon price and reduction effect. Therefore, the future K-ETS is expected to be able to show a moderate reduction effect, appropriately managing the carbon price and allowance holdings. The result of this study indicates that the effectiveness of ETS depends on the carbon price over the reduction cost, and thus in order to economically improve it, governmental policies are required to lower the reduction cost. The proposed optimization model is expected to be also applicable to optimal planning of a company’s approach to net zero emissions.

Carbon offset, Carbon price, Emissions trading system, EU-ETS, K-ETS

1. UN, “1.5°C: What it Means and Why it Matters,” Climate Action Fast Facts (2024).
2. Wynes, S., Davis, S. J., Dickau, M., Ly, S., Maibach, E., Rogelj, J., Zickfeld, K. and Damon Matthews, H., “Perceptions of Car- bon Dioxide Emission Reductions and Future Warming Among
Climate Experts,” Communications Earth & Environment, 5, 498
(2024).
3. ClimatePartner, “2025 in Climate Action: VCM 2.0, CSRD, and Peak Emissions,” ClimatePartner GmbH (2025).
4. Haskett, J. D., “U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Process and Potential Effects,” Congressional Research Service, R48504 (2025).
5. ICAP, “Compare ETS,” International Carbon Action Partnership (2025).
6. ICAP, “Korea Emissions Trading System (K-ETS),” International Carbon Action Partnership (2025).
7. ICAP, “ICAP Allowance Price Explorer,” International Carbon Action Partnership (2025).
8. IEA, “Global Energy and Climate Model Documentation – 2024,” International Energy Agency (2024).
9. Tiseo, I., “Average Price of Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) Credits Worldwide from 2023 to 2024,” Statista (2025).
10. Tiseo, I., “Forecast Voluntary Carbon Offset (VCO) Prices World- wide in 2030 and 2050, by Scenario,” Statista (2025).
11. Baylin-Stern, A. and Berghout, N., “Is Carbon Capture Too Expensive?,” IEA Commentary (2021).
12. Ozkan, M., “Atmospheric Alchemy: The Energy and Cost Dynam- ics of Direct Air Carbon Capture,” MRS Energy & Sustainabil- ity, 12, 46-61(2025).
13. Olmstead, S. M., Leibowicz, B. D., Mason, C. F., Waxman, A. R., Grubert, E., Huber-Rodriguez, H. R. and Stemmler, J., “How to Design Better Incentives for Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States,” PNAS, 122(29), e2404677122(2025).
14. Republic of Korea, “The Republic of Korea’s Enhanced Update of its First Nationally Determined Contribution,” UNFCCC NDC Registry (2021).
15. Hatchley, K. and Lee, S., “New Briefing: South Korea's Emis- sions Trading Scheme Weakened by Pressure from Major Indus- tries,” InfluenceMap (2025).
16. MathWorks, “fmincon – Find Minimum of Constrained Nonlin- ear Multivariable Function,” MATLAB Help Center (2025).