'Turkey's climate law does not aim to combat climate change'

The Climate Law Proposal, which had been prepared in secrecy and whose drafts had been leaked to the press in previous years, has been submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Climate laws are designed to establish a legally binding roadmap outlining final and interim targets for combating climate change. However, experts criticize the proposed Climate Law for failing to provide a sufficient framework for when and how Turkey will reduce its carbon emissions, arguing that, in its current form, it falls short of being a true climate law.

The Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5 or at most 2 degrees Celsius, has been ratified by 194 countries and the European Union, including Turkey. However, since the agreement allows flexibility in how countries achieve this goal, many nations are working on legally binding roadmaps. Climate laws, which are expected to include short-, medium-, and long-term targets, serve as guiding instruments in the fight against climate change.

Turkey, which both ratified the Paris Agreement in October 2021 and set a net zero emissions target for 2053, has been preparing its climate law since 2021. The draft versions of the Climate Law Proposal had surfaced in the press at various times, and on February 20, 2025, the proposal was officially submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). However, experts argue that the text, which lacks concrete regulations or interim targets for combating climate change, cannot truly be considered a climate law in its current form.

'A legislative regulation aimed at creating a market'

Commenting on the Climate Law Proposal, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serkan Köybaşı, the Founding Director of the Animal and Nature Law Laboratory at Bahçeşehir University Faculty of Law, says that although the proposal is called a "climate law," it is, in reality, "a legislative regulation that will only serve to create a market rather than actually stopping climate change."

Köybaşı points out that even the 2053 net zero target is mentioned only in the justification section, which has secondary legal binding power. According to him, the law should have explicitly stated emission reduction targets for 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2053.

Dr. Ezgi Ediboğlu, a Senior Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, expresses her concerns after reviewing the Climate Law Proposal, saying, "Overall, the draft gives the impression that it is more about regulating the economic gains that could come from climate change."

Highlighting a significant issue with the proposal's vision, which defines the climate crisis as an "opportunity," Ediboğlu also criticizes the prioritization of economic development over environmental protection. She emphasizes that environmental protection must be safeguarded in the fight against climate change, yet in this proposal, "the exact opposite has been done—at every stage, a development clause has been added, or economic development has been placed in direct opposition to environmental protection."

(TY/VK)