Türkiye’s Climate Law Takes Action

The Climate Law Proposal made by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) was discussed by the assembly on 9th of April, and the first four of the 20 items were accepted. The Climate Law has been under discussion for approximately two years, and the start of parliamentary meetings last week gave rise to disinformation on social media.

The law includes regulations designed to help Türkiye achieve its 2053 net zero emissions target and effectively combat climate change. Key arrangements include the establishment of Provincial Climate Change Coordination Boards under the chairmanship of provincial governors, which will coordinate the preparation and implementation of local climate action plans. A new Climate Change Ministry will be created to prepare national and sectoral reports, develop incentive mechanisms, and create the Turkish Green Taxonomy. This institution will also manage the carbon market through the establishment of an Emission Trading System (ETS). Businesses that directly cause greenhouse gas emissions will be required to obtain emission permits from the Climate Change Directorate. A Borderline Carbon Regulatory Mechanism will consider the embedded greenhouse gas emissions of imported goods in order to prevent carbon leakage. Additionally, enterprises that fail to present greenhouse gas emission reports on time will face fines ranging from 500 thousand TL to 5 million TL, while those using ozone layer-depleting substances illegally may face fines of up to 2.5 million TL.

The proposed law aims to establish a legal and institutional framework for Türkiye's climate change efforts. The first four articles, adopted last week, state that the reduction and adaptation activities related to greenhouse gas emissions will be monitored annually by the Climate Change Presidency; public institutions and the private sector will be obliged to comply with climate measures; the net zero-emission target will be shaped according to national development priorities; and carbon pricing mechanisms will be under the authority of the Climate Change Presidency.

In the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, where the first four articles were previously accepted, the proposal was later withdrawn for further discussion in commission. AK Party Group Deputy Chairwoman Leyla Şahin Usta explained that a new commission on agricultural frost would be established, and that they decided to rework the proposal by taking into account contributions from various stakeholders, aiming for a consensus between the ruling party and the opposition.

Türkiye launces first climate law, anews

The General Assembly convened under the chairmanship of Deputy Speaker Gülizar Biçer Karaca to discuss the agenda items. During the session, Group Deputy Chairpersons shared their evaluations of the proposal. Selçuk Özdağ, Deputy Group Chairman of the New Path Party(Yeni Yol Partisi), criticized the process, saying that the law was rushed through the main commission instead of being reviewed by secondary commissions, and passed in a single day. He accused the ruling party of bypassing the Constitutional Court and suppressing opposition voices, claiming that the law served as a tool for privilege rather than environmental protection. According to him, it reinforced a mentality of “if I have money, I can pollute.”

Although the law was withdrawn from commission, this was not seen as a victory for environmental activists who had worked tirelessly, holding meetings and traveling to Ankara in hopes of stopping it. Instead, it was perceived as a victory for climate deniers. One of the clearest reflections of this view came from Professor Dr. Levent Kurnaz of Boğaziçi University, who remarked that the withdrawal marked a defeat for science. He warned that when scientists fail to effectively communicate with the public, the result is a rise in climate denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, and belief in various forms of superstition. Professor Kurnaz’s words capture not only the fate of one legislative proposal, but also the broader challenges in a country’s relationship with scientific knowledge.

Edited by: Yağmur Ece Nisanoğlu