The first ‘Climate Law Proposal’ of Turkey: No pollution prevention but market opening
The first ‘Climate Law Proposal’ of Turkey, which was approved by the Parliament's Environment Commission, continues to draw backlash. Environmental organisations and scientists said: ‘It is not a Climate Law; it is a legal cover for looting. We demand a true Climate Law'
News Centre
Reactions to the Climate Law Proposal, which was discussed and approved by the Turkish Grand National Assembly Environment Commission, are growing. According to the proposal, an Emission Trading System (ETS) will be established, and a Provincial Climate Change Coordination Board will be established in each province under the presidency of the governor. The proposal is likely to be put on the agenda of the General Assembly soon. Environmental organisations and political opposition parties criticised the Climate Law and said, ‘This law commercialises pollution’.
The 20-article ‘Climate Law Proposal’, which was held in the Parliament's Environment Commission the other day, was approved. The proposal aims to establish an Emission Trading System (ETS) by the Climate Change Presidency and a Provincial Climate Change Coordination Board in each province, headed by the Governor and consisting of representatives of provincial or regional organisations and local governments. The proposal is expected to be put on the agenda of the General Assembly in the coming weeks.
THEY WILL GAIN PROFIT
CHP Ankara Deputy and Member of the Environment Commission Semra Dinçer criticised the Climate Law and said, ‘The Climate Law has been brought to our Commission, but we think that this law proposal has major flaws on how to reduce carbon emissions, stop the climate crisis, protect our environment and preserve a habitable world for the future. There is no effort to combat carbon emissions in the law. On the contrary, this law paves the way for the establishment of an emission exchange, allowing whoever has the money to have as many emission rights as desired and to pollute our nature and air even more.’
Underlining the importance of reducing carbon emissions and even minimising them to zero, Dinçer said: ‘Beyond this law being a climate law, it has been prepared with purely commercial concerns. With this law, carbon will become a commodity that can be bought and sold. Carbon emission will be turned into a means of wealth generation, and profit will be gained from the pollution of our nature and air. In this proposal, which aims to solve the crisis of capital, the Climate Crisis cannot be fought without making regulations in the Forest Law, Water Law, Coastal Law, Agricultural Law and Pasture Law. Growth does not imply that the wild capitalism can destroy our environment.
Our nature should not be sacrificed to profit for the wealth generation of a few. The Climate Law should not create opportunities for companies to trade carbon; it should be formulated in a way that accelerates the exit from fossil fuels, protects nature and guarantees public health. Among 38 OECD countries, Turkey is the only country that cannot set an end date for coal. This law is a law to commercialise pollution, let alone to shut down thermal power plants. ‘. DEM Party Mersin MP Perihan Koca said, ’It is not a climate law, but a cover for looting. Article 14 of the climate law gives the capital and its allies the right to pollute the atmosphere as they wish. It will be a scheme that will encourage pollution, because companies will buy the right to pollute for a price. Does anyone think that a 5 million TL fine can discourage a capitalist? For instance, will there be a sanction for the climate crimes committed by Cengiz Holding?’.
WE DO NOT APPROVE
CHP Kars deputy lawyer İnan Akgün Alp, who participated in the Environment Commission, said that the Climate Law proposal is in violation of the Constitution. Alp continued as follows: ‘’The Climate Law proposal contradicts Articles 2 and 56 of the Constitution as it is a regulation that does not include citizens in the process, does not provide transparent and accountable procedures, does not include measures to protect biodiversity and biological systems, does not contain any provisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions starting from today, and does not establish a fair transition procedure.‘’ Stating that a regulation that does not protect nature and disregards the demands of the public cannot be considered as legitimate, the activists said, ‘We feel the responsibility for forests that we can breathe, clear water that we can drink, and a world that is healthy and equal. Therefore, we do not approve a draft law that does not include public participation and that serves the interests of companies.’
