The climate crisis and COP meetings: What has been done and what needs to be done

The United Nations Climate Change Conferences (COP), which serve as a solution to climate change—a phenomenon for which naturalists have for years persistently provided evidence of being "human-induced"—continue. After Brazil, Turkey (likely Antalya) will host COP31 next year, with Australia taking on the role of negotiation lead.

The Conferences of the Parties, which began exactly 30 years ago in Berlin, are progressing at a pace that does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. At the meeting held in Kyoto in December 1997, the "market-based" "polluter pays" logic was accepted, calling for a climate mobilization of capitalism in developing countries through carbon or emissions trading. At the Paris conference 10 years ago, countries were asked to set a "voluntary" carbon emission target within the framework of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), in accordance with the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. An emission reduction was envisioned, taking into account the economic and social conditions of the countries.

DREAMS OF NET ZERO EMISSIONS

The EU has already announced that it will reduce its fossil fuels according to a certain schedule. According to the Paris Climate Agreement, they declared a target of a 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2035 and "net zero" by 2050. Other countries were to declare their commitments regarding when they would transition to net zero emissions. Thus, a return to the 1.5-degree increase target from the beginning of industrialization on Earth is envisioned. It has already been determined that this increase is currently above 2 degrees. For example, China has declared a "net zero" carbon emission target by 2060. However, it is known that it will not reduce coal usage, which is set to peak by 2030. Coal energy production and consumption, which pollutes the most and costs thousands of lives in mines, is the riskiest method and the most troublesome for the climate crisis. The 90 percent Chinese dominance in rare earth minerals used as industrial inputs creates a bottleneck in this regard in terms of power relations. This is a topic broad enough for another article.

So why does China not give up on coal, despite announcing that it has increased its renewable energy capacity to 50 percent of its total energy consumption? Is this a decision by the Chinese Communist Party, which participates in capitalist competition with an understanding of market efficiency?

Since China has taken the title of the most polluting country from the US, why can the world not pressure China on this issue?

Because others, especially the Middle Eastern oil countries, are also rapidly continuing to produce and sell fossil fuels. Furthermore, they do not hesitate to sell the natural gas that is released while producing oil (thereby increasing pollution).

In summary, the "polluter pays" method is actually slow and not suitable for the decision to return to 1.5 degrees. I do not want to dismiss the efforts at the COPs, but I would like to point out that the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016 and its return process in 2021 are also part of the slowdown.

POLLUTERS: THE 7 SISTERS

The US, which was the biggest polluter for a long time and is still the second-largest polluter while consuming and producing, has recently started oil exploration drilling in Alaska. Because in oil production, which has a history of approximately 150 years, 5 of the famous oil companies known as the 7 Sisters are American. Due to the monopolization that developed within the framework of competition with European companies (BP, Total, Shell), Exxon Mobil and Chevron are still rapidly continuing their operations as the two remaining sisters. Therefore, it is not strange that the largest participation in COP meetings comes from oil companies (by paying fees, almost like funding). Also, the largest partner of Saudi Aramco is American companies... Therefore, let us add that although the US returned to the Paris Climate Agreement in 2021, it is dragging its feet, participating in meetings with a low profile, and has not created any national declaration.

Meanwhile, the final report of COP30, held in Belém, Brazil, last weekend, was published with the participation of 190 countries. Unfortunately, a phase-out program containing a clear schedule for reducing fossil fuels was not announced. However, it was reported at COP30, according to the UNFCCC (United Nations Climate Change Framework), that a 60 percent emission reduction by 2035 is impossible according to calculations, and considering the current situation in emissions, the carbon reduction in 2035 will only be between 19-24 percent.

Even this terrible delay could not put an action plan into official form at COP30; there is only empty rhetoric in the current report such as "global ambition must be increased." "Let's give credit where it's due": A just transition mechanism was emphasized at COP30. Thus, the rights of workers, women, indigenous peoples, and vulnerable groups will be guaranteed. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than an excuse for the delay in carbon emissions.

Capitalism's inequality problem cannot be transferred to a carbon emission plan with an emphasis on development. The long history of inequality cannot be solved by mitigating the climate crisis. This may be a screening presented by companies through power relations and the neoliberal ideology reflected in economics.

WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO

Within the framework of COP31, parties will likely discuss proposals against the climate crisis on a warm winter day in Antalya, but they will not even be interested in how to extend the battery life of electric vehicles developed as an alternative to fossil fuels, for example.

At COP30, a voluntary fossil fuel phase-out coalition was formed under the leadership of the Netherlands and Colombia outside of the COP (however that will work); reporting will be done at COP31, which is also controversial in its impact. Yet, ending fossil fuels with a definitive schedule is the number one problem, just as much as reducing plastic use is for global warming. In many Western European countries, for example, the use of straws has long been phased out. Will the use of straws (except for the sick and disabled) continue for the whole world in Antalya, which will start with water service in plastic bottles? What is a matter of curiosity is that the solution comes from not cutting down trees. It is known that the highways built to reach the building organized for the last Belém, Brazil meeting cost thousands of trees.

Is Turkey ready for the industrial and energy industries it will export to the EU (January 1, 2026), which will switch to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)?

The record-level increase in solar and wind installation capacity in 2024 and the plan to increase the installed capacity in renewable energy by 4 times by 2035 are undoubtedly positive. However, as determined in the COP30 report, 55 percent of electricity production in Turkey still comes from fossil fuels. Therefore, the increase in electric land vehicles will unfortunately also increase fossil fuel usage. On the other hand, according to the COP30 final report, Turkey has announced its 2035 carbon emission target. According to this, the carbon emission increase, which is targeted to be 16 percent above 2023 (it is significant that it is a Covid-19 year), presents an inconsistent appearance with Turkey's previously announced 2053 "net zero" carbon target, according to the report.(*) Because "the large fires in Turkey, the expansion of mining and energy permits, and the weakening legislation on olive groves and protected areas with the omnibus law," according to the report again, lead to two things. First, it reduces the carbon sequestration capacity of forests in Turkey by 50 percent in the last 8 years, and second, while renewable capacity is increased, the promotion of fossil fuels and coal production weakens the country's "net zero" vision.

HAS NO REPORTING BEEN DONE?

In a climate crisis workshop held in recent weeks where I was also a speaker, a high-level public official stated that around 500 companies are doing carbon reporting. This data means that tens of thousands of companies in the relevant sectors are not reporting. When I brought up the subject in my master's class, some student friends (company employees) were expecting that the deadline would definitely be extended.

Let's say the CBAM, which will start on January 1, 2026, is extended. Has the workload of the companies that report been planned? I don't think so. The Climate Law, which was enacted on May 16, 2023, stipulates that regulations be prepared by December 31, 2027. So how will the regulation, prepared with this one-year delay, guide trade?

Will the price of being late not be paid by the relevant sectors?

Because there is no deadline extension on the EU side for now. Do we think this situation will not reflect on the employees? When we continue the questions, what about the opening of new mining areas by relocating olive trees cut down based on the Climate Law? How do we reconcile capitalism's market-based understanding of efficiency and development effort with the climate crisis, rather than labor productivity, being tied to valuable minerals? Will the thousands of relocated olive trees stop carbon in their new places? Or will they not like their new places?

We shall see.

On the other hand, it is unclear how Turkey, which is "trying" to bring inflation down from 30 percent, will reflect the carbon tax burden (which will be reflected in prices) that the EU will impose during the process of adapting to the CBAM onto its already high costs. Tying the financing problem to funds coming from the EU does not solve the problem, it only postpones it. Already at the meeting in COP30 (Belém, Brazil), the financing problem was postponed to 2035.

Final word: In fact, we need to change our view of the ecological crisis in economics. We must look at ecology, in accordance with the Copernican paradigm, not as finance-oriented, but as Earth-oriented, and by putting social benefit ahead of the short-term narrow framework of the economy. This is possible by moving away from fossil fuels and fossil-based commodities, especially plastic, with a schedule (with a slight delay in developing countries) instead of the "polluter pays" mentality.

___________________

(*) https://habitatdernegi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/COP30-DEG%CC%86ERLENDI%CC%87RME-RAPORU.pdf