Newsletters
Türkiye has submitted a new climate pledge for 2035 that it presents as a strong step toward its 2053 net zero target.
The updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0), sent to the U.N. climate secretariat just before the COP30 summit in Belem, promises a “41 percent reduction” in greenhouse gas emissions compared with a revised reference scenario, as reported by Dr. Ezgi Ediboglu for Iklim Masasi.
In public messaging this sounds like a major cut, but climate experts and civil society groups say the numbers tell a different story.
According to official data cited by Ediboglu, Türkiye’s emissions rose from about 530 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2018 to around 552 million tons in 2023.
Under the new target they will reach 643 million tons by 2035. This means emissions will not fall below today’s levels but instead rise by about 16 percent compared with 2023 and 21 percent compared with 2018.
Iklim Agi (Climate Network) a platform that brings together 15 organisations working on climate policy, also stresses that the new target “does not reduce emissions compared with today” and only slows the increase that the government expects under its growth scenario.
This approach, described by experts as “reduction from growth,” raises questions about Türkiye’s climate trajectory at a time when global benchmarks are tightening.
Sustainable Economics and Finance Association's (SEFiA) director Bengisu Ozenc adds that although the government updated the reference scenario in the new NDC, it still assumes emissions will grow twice as fast as in the past 30 years, which casts doubt on the realism of the plan.
Ediboglu notes that recent reports by the U.N. Environment Program and the International Energy Agency show that countries need to cut emissions sharply by 2035 to keep global warming firmly below 2 degrees Celsius, with the aim to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
In contrast, Türkiye’s plan allows emissions to rise for another decade and projects that they will peak only around 2038. Meanwhile, Greenpeace Türkiye’s summary of the State of Climate Action 2025 report underlines that none of the 45 key indicators for staying on track for 1.5 degrees is progressing at the required pace.
Ezgi Ediboglu explains that the 41 percent figure depends on a revised reference scenario that assumes emissions would reach about 1.1 billion tons by 2035 if no action is taken.
When the government promises to keep emissions at 643 million tons, it presents the difference as a reduction. Experts say this comparison does not reflect real conditions and makes it harder to evaluate progress.
Temiz Enerji's (Clean Energy) reporting includes similar concerns from Umit Sahin of the Istanbul Policy Center. Sahin describes the target as “not a reduction but an increase,” because the new pledge lets emissions rise for another decade. He adds that the reference scenario itself is unrealistic, given Türkiye’s economic structure and energy mix, and argues that a target built on an inflated forecast weakens accountability.
Ediboglu also compares Türkiye’s pathway with international scientific assessments. She notes that the IPCC has shown that the world needs to peak emissions by 2025 and cut them by about a quarter by 2030 to keep warming close to 2 degrees.
The U.N. Environment Program Emissions Gap Report states that countries need to cut emissions by 55 percent by 2035 compared with 2019 levels to keep the 1.5 degree target within reach. Even a 2 degree limit would require a 35 percent cut.
Civil society groups say Türkiye’s pledge does not match these benchmarks, because it allows emissions to rise until at least 2035 and reach their peak only around 2038. They argue that this gap weakens Türkiye’s resilience and places the country among those whose targets are not aligned with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals.
Experts say the weakest part of Türkiye’s new climate plan is the lack of a clear strategy for moving away from fossil fuels.
Ezgi Ediboglu notes that the updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) lists many intentions for renewable energy and electrification but does not include binding targets or a timetable for investments. She explains that the document provides no coal exit commitment, no plan to phase out other fossil fuels, and no detailed schedule for expanding renewable capacity or strengthening the electricity grid.
These gaps matter because electricity demand is rising fast and delays in grid upgrades or storage investments will make the transition slower and more expensive.
The platform Climate Network also points to the Energy Ministry’s incentive plan for coal power plants, announced only weeks before the new target. This plan signals continued space for coal in electricity production, even though civil society groups say the focus should shift to a just transition for workers and communities affected by the decline of coal.
They also warn that the new climate target ignores this need and continues an approach that raises environmental risks while weakening public participation.
WWF-Türkiye’s climate and energy program draws a similar conclusion. Tanyeli Behic Sabuncu states that the 2035 target is not aligned with the 1.5 degree threshold and argues that Türkiye should begin cutting emissions today, announce a coal exit plan, and launch a just energy transition that places people at the center of decision-making.
The broader global picture shows why such gaps have become harder to justify.
Greenpeace Türkiye’s summary of the State of Climate Action 2025 report notes that none of the 45 global indicators needed for a 1.5 degree pathway is on track. The report shows that coal phase-out must accelerate at least tenfold and that continued investment in fossil fuels, combined with rising emissions, keeps the world on a dangerous path.
In this global context, Türkiye’s absence of a fossil fuel exit plan stands out as a major weakness that restricts its ability to meet long-term climate goals and improve energy security.
Civil society groups say the new climate target was prepared without meaningful participation and lacks the tools needed for implementation.
Ezgi Ediboglu notes that the government presents the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as a product of consultation, but many key organisations report that they were not invited to contribute to the process. She adds that the discussions were informational rather than collaborative, which limits trust in the plan and weakens its credibility.
Climate Network stresses that Türkiye needs a strong climate target to build resilience against drought, floods and wildfires, yet the new pledge “ignores the principle of participation” and overlooks expert input from environmental organisations.
It also warns that the target does not include any strategy for adaptation, nature protection or resilience building, even though these issues have significant consequences for agriculture, water resources and public safety.
ClientEarth lawyer Gizem Koc states that announcing a credible climate target is not only a political choice but also a legal obligation under the Paris Agreement. She refers to international rulings, including a decision by the International Court of Justice, that confirm a country’s climate targets can be challenged if they are not suitable for meeting the agreement’s goals.
This view is echoed by many civil society groups, which argue that the absence of enforceable milestones in Türkiye’s NDC weakens its legal foundation.
Other organisations point to issues that reduce confidence in implementation. Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe’s Türkiye coordinator Ozlem Katisoz states that Türkiye moved away from the ambition it expressed when announcing the 2053 net zero target in 2021. She highlights the Akbelen case, where olive groves were removed for coal mining under the most recent omnibus law.
Ediboglu’s analysis provides a final layer to these concerns. She notes that Türkiye has many strategies and action plans, but they are not matched with clear interim targets or measurable steps. This gap makes it difficult to track progress toward the 2053 net zero goal. She also points out that the state plans to rely on investments equal to about 1.7 percent of annual GDP, yet the document does not explain how this funding will be secured or monitored.
These issues lead civil society groups to question whether Türkiye will be able to turn its long list of actions into real climate progress.
Experts also warn that the new climate target does not address nature protection or land use pressures, even though these issues shape Türkiye’s environmental resilience.
Ezgi Ediboglu notes that the NDC presents waste management as a success story, but official figures show a growing problem. She reports that Türkiye’s waste volume reached 120 million tons in 2024, and most of it is still disposed of in landfills.
She adds that Türkiye is also the largest importer of waste in Europe, which raises questions about how the country will manage rising volumes in the future. These concerns contrast sharply with the positive language in the NDC and create doubts about whether the proposed actions will be carried out.
Climate Network’s earlier warning also highlights the risks linked to land use and environmental regulation. The platform states that the recent omnibus law, known as Law 7554, has weakened protection for water resources, forests and farmland by opening them to mining projects.
Its first visible impact was in Akbelen, where olive trees were removed for coal mining. The network argues that such decisions undermine climate resilience and increase ecological risks at a time when Türkiye faces drought, wildfires and soil degradation.
The platform also notes that the NDC does not include any plan to expand protected areas, restore damaged ecosystems or address the drivers of biodiversity loss.
WWF-Türkiye says that protecting nature should be central to climate policy because ecosystems reduce climate risks and support food and water security. WWF lists a set of steps that Türkiye should consider, including restoring degraded forests and wetlands and raising the share of protected areas to 30 percent by 2030. These steps do not appear in the current climate target.
Ediboglu’s analysis adds another layer to this picture as she points out that Türkiye has many strategies on paper, but none of them set measurable milestones for nature protection or adaptation. Without clear timelines or enforcement mechanisms, it becomes difficult to track whether forest protection, water efficiency or land restoration programmes are progressing.
Civil society groups say this gap weakens Türkiye’s ability to prepare for rising climate impacts and leaves the country more exposed to extreme weather, agricultural losses and ecosystem degradation.
Global climate action is already off track, and this shapes the context of Türkiye’s new 2035 target.
Greenpeace Türkiye’s summary of the State of Climate Action 2025 report shows that none of the 45 indicators needed for a 1.5 degree pathway is progressing at the required pace. Emissions reached a record level in 2023, 2024 became the hottest year on record and public financing for fossil fuels continues to rise. These trends point to a wider slowdown in climate action across many countries.
Türkiye’s new NDC also reflects this global pattern as the pledge sets out a long-term goal of net zero by 2053. However, experts note that the steps planned for the next decade do not match what international benchmarks demand.
Dr. Ezgi Ediboglu and civil society groups say this tension between ambition and near-term action is also visible in other countries that prioritize short-term energy needs while postponing decisive emission cuts.
Experts state that global emissions must fall sharply by 2035 to keep the 1.5 or 2 degree limits within reach. Türkiye’s choices in the coming years will therefore have direct consequences for its resilience to drought, wildfires and agricultural stress.
Discussing Türkiye’s NDC within this global picture shows that the country faces the same challenge confronting many governments: closing the gap between long-term climate goals and the rapid action that climate science now requires.
5 min read
