Korea announced Tuesday it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 37 percent by 2030, a higher target than previously proposed.

Its planned contribution, which was submitted to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat later in the day, calls for reductions of 25.7 percent from the country’s business-as-usual level ― the amount of emissions forecast if no action is taken ― by 2030. The remaining 11.3 percent cut would come in the form of purchasing carbon credits to offset emissions.

On June 11, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy suggested four options for setting Korea’s emissions reduction goal. They ranged from the minimum 14.7 percent to the maximum 31.3 percent cut from the country’s BAU level by 2030.

Without any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Korea’s overall emissions are projected to grow by an annual average of 1.3 percent over the next 15 years to reach 850.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030, according to a report released by the ministry.

Even if the most aggressive option had been adopted, it would still have marked a setback from a pledge made by the previous administration under President Lee Myung-bak to cut the country’s overall emissions by 30 percent from the BAU level by 2020.

During his phone talks with President Park Geun-hye a day after Seoul put forward the four scenarios, U.S. President Barack Obama asked her to set an ambitious goal in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, citing efforts to ensure the success of a crucial global climate conference to start in Paris in November. Though wrapped in diplomatic rhetoric, his request was seen by officials here as putting pressure on Seoul to set a higher target.

Tuesday’s announcement made by Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn apparently took Obama’s wish to heart. Hwang tried to justify the sudden shift in the government’s position by noting Korea has played a leading role in fighting climate change. It would have been better for the Park administration not to attempt to backpedal on Seoul’s earlier pledge at the risk of damaging Korea’s international credibility.

Seoul’s latest commitment is designed to lessen the burden on local manufacturers by purchasing carbon credits through an international market mechanism that has yet to take shape. As some critics note, this scheme might result in getting Korea to shoulder more costs.

Still, business organizations and energy companies here immediately issued a statement against the government’s emissions reduction goal, which they claimed disregarded Korea’s industrial conditions and could push them over the edge. Given the country is the seventh-biggest emitter in the world, it does not make global sense to argue that Korea should continue to be treated as a developing country not bound by obligations to cut emissions.

Korean companies should try to find opportunities in the shift in global investment toward projects to mitigate climate change. They also need to prepare themselves for an era in which tightened standards for reducing emissions become the norm in international trade.

Now is the time for all sectors in the country to perceive that meeting obligations in curbing global warming can no longer remain a task for tomorrow.