Dissenting approaches to the Climate Law draft

Turkey ratified the “Paris Climate Agreement” on October 7, 2021, by presidential decree, and within the framework of the agreement, Turkey announced its target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2053.

In some criticisms directed at the Paris Climate Agreement, it is argued that the “Net Zero” target is a trap used to deindustrialize developing countries like Turkey, and that the United Nations, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and major financial institutions aim to control global capital flows by using the “climate change” narrative. It is also stated that Turkey could face carbon taxes expected to reach 2.5 billion dollars annually by 2032.

In this context, the Climate Law Draft submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) by the ruling party in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement faced effective resistance from opposition parties and non-governmental organizations. The basis of this resistance was the view that the bill's approach—that companies emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases could solve the global climate change problem by purchasing carbon credits—is incorrect.

According to media reports dated April 15, 2025, we have learned that the Climate Law Draft has been withdrawn to the commission for further deliberation.

What are the main criticisms of the draft law?

• There are no intermediate targets set outside of the net-zero emission target for 2053 stated in the “Nationally Determined Contribution,” such as what goals will be achieved in five, ten, or twenty years.

• The draft law contains no concrete targets for reducing the use of coal, oil, and gas that cause air pollution in the country or for improving air quality. For example, will coal power plants be closed, or will priority be given to mass transit to reduce individual car usage?

• The draft law does not address how the concessions granted to domestic and foreign companies that destroy our nature will be handled. For example, how will the cutting of trees in the Kaz Mountains, the Black Sea region, the Aegean, and the Mediterranean be prevented?

• The draft law does not provide clear solutions to the problems that climate change will bring to agricultural production.

As is known, drought is increasing, precipitation regimes are changing, and as a result, Turkey is losing its food sovereignty. Our agricultural production cannot be sustained without oil, chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, and imported feed raw materials, which also contribute to climate change. Rising excessive costs in production have caused a decline in cultivated areas, which has made Turkey an importer of many agricultural products, from wheat to beans.

• The draft law does not take into account the multifaceted effects of the climate crisis on human, animal, plant, and environmental health. Climate change also threatens the health of plant and animal production, which are the two main components of agriculture; for instance, it increases the spread of zoonotic diseases in livestock. Today, more than 61 percent of human diseases are of animal origin.

• During the preparation process of the draft law, relevant parties were not included in the process. The draft was written by the Ministry behind closed doors.

What topics should the Climate Law Draft cover, or what should be done against the climate change crisis?

• The transition to renewable energy should be accelerated.

• In addition to creating green cities, focus should be placed on constructing buildings that require less energy.

• Deforestation must be prevented, and nature's self-regeneration should be supported. In this context, topics such as recharging aquifers, growing fast-developing and diverse tree species, and conducting research to prevent acid rain can be listed.

• Research aimed at developing plant varieties more resistant to drought and cold should be rapidly implemented.

• Global fossil fuel and chemical fertilizer use should be reduced. For instance, it should be considered that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are 1.39 times higher than emissions resulting from commercial aviation.

Supporting agricultural chemicals and oil in the short term to revitalize agricultural production can only be a temporary tactical measure. However, from the first year onwards, a strategy should be implemented in agriculture that supports agroecological practices and includes farmer-consumer solidarity based on a “produce locally, consume locally” approach.

• The public sector should stop supporting practices that are completely contrary to ecology, such as “agriculture-based organized industrial zones” where intensive livestock farming is the basis.

• In animal nutrition, our pastures should be considered instead of industrial factory feed, and pasture areas must be protected. Pastures can be supported through approaches such as holistic grazing management.

• The One Health Approach should be added to the draft law, and it should be taken into account that the climate crisis is also a health crisis.

• Serious programs and policies strongly supported by central and local governments should be implemented against the negative impacts of climate change. To achieve this, non-governmental organizations and individuals working in this field should also be involved.

Note: Prof. Dr. Tayfun Özkaya's article dated April 14, 2025, titled “Climate Law Proposal: Another Law is Possible,” was also utilized in the writing of this article, “Dissenting Approaches to the Climate Law Draft.”