Newsletters
Türkiye has passed its first comprehensive climate law, aiming to establish a legal and institutional foundation for its climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Backed by the ruling AK Party, the legislation introduces formal definitions for core climate concepts such as “net zero emissions,” “climate justice,” “emissions trading system (ETS),” and “carbon credit,” while outlining a new regulatory architecture for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The law also sets the groundwork for launching a national carbon market, a long-anticipated reform that would bring Türkiye closer to EU environmental standards.
Yet rather than rallying support, despite its stated aims, the law has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum with each camp voicing distinct objections, and at times, converging concerns.
One stream of opposition has come from Türkiye’s nationalist and conservative circles, who view the law as externally imposed and reflective of Western or “globalist” influence. Figures associated with Eurasianist and anti-Western positions have been particularly vocal.
Secular nationalist journalist Banu Avar, a prominent Eurasianist critic of both the West and the ruling government, claimed in a widely circulated video that the law would require citizens to seek permission for private gardening and impose methane quotas on livestock. Her rhetoric reflects a growing narrative that environmental regulations are a vehicle for foreign control over national resources and rural livelihoods.
Mustafa Kaya, deputy chair of the Islamist Saadet Party and member of parliament for Istanbul, referenced former US President Donald Trump during parliamentary debate, warning that the bill would place an unnecessary burden and even damage on Turkish industry. Another conservative group, the New Welfare Party (YRP), which gained momentum in recent local elections, also opposed the law, framing it as an economic and social risk.
Some conspiracy theorists have gone further, alleging that the law’s design is influenced by international foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and warning of future travel restrictions based on personal carbon footprints.
While the journalist Avar’s position emerges from a left-wing, anti-imperialist tradition skeptical of Western interventions, her rhetoric mirrors talking points increasingly found on the right — especially among national-conservative and Islamist actors suspicious of globalization.
This convergence is noteworthy in a polarized political landscape where secular and religious camps rarely find common ground. Yet in this case, both criticize the climate law as a vehicle for foreign economic interests and domestic elite capture.
The law’s passage coincided with a time of major wildfires in western Türkiye, fueling further public unease and gave traction to conspiracy theories surrounding climate governance and land management.
Opposition critics, meanwhile, have argued that the law prioritizes market mechanisms over public accountability and inclusivity. Members of opposition parties and environmental organizations have raised concerns about the law’s emphasis on emissions trading without sufficient guarantees for transparency, environmental integrity, or equitable burden-sharing.
Republican People’s Party (CHP) lawmaker Ali Mahir Basarir criticized the legislation as serving narrow business interests. “We do need a climate law — but one shaped by the collective input of universities, civil society, and local administrations,” he said. “This so-called climate law is designed to benefit just five pro-government companies.”
Major civil society actors have also criticized the bill for lacking a comprehensive vision. The TEMA Foundation, one of Türkiye’s largest environmental NGOs, stated that the legislation does not amount to a true climate law. In a public statement, the group said the law focuses narrowly on carbon markets without addressing essential issues such as fossil fuel phase-out, adaptation planning, or the fair redistribution of revenues generated from emissions trading.
“Nature and people are the losers here,” the statement read. TEMA also expressed hope that the Constitutional Court might review and potentially block the legislation on constitutional grounds.
Greenpeace Türkiye’s climate and energy campaigner, Emel Turker Alpay, questioned the effectiveness of the emissions trading system in the absence of a national emissions reduction target and proper regulatory mechanisms. “The law, in its current form, doesn’t even offer a functional framework for ETS,” she noted.
On social media, some observers argued that the law was fast-tracked not out of environmental urgency but to unlock access to international green finance. Critics cite a 2021 Reuters report suggesting that Ankara’s climate commitments were part of broader negotiations with European partners over development loans and investment flows.
While the AK Party has not directly addressed these accusations, the nation’s Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change briefly dismissed the growing wave of criticism in a fact-check-style statement, rejecting claims about land-use restrictions and livestock quotas. However, it refrained from offering a detailed response or clarifying ambiguities within the law.
Whether the law will be implemented as designed, and whether its impact will reflect the sweeping concerns raised by its critics, remains to be seen.
3 min read
