Dr. Ümit Şahin is senior scholar and head of the climate change program at the Istanbul Policy Center, Sabancı University, Turkey.
At the UN Climate Summit in New York, Turkey’s announcement of its new NDC drew less attention than China’s updated climate targets. That is hardly surprising – China’s emissions dominate global totals. But dismissing Turkey’s role would be a mistake.
As the world’s 15th-largest emitter, with rising emissions and a fast-growing economy, Turkey is an important piece of the climate puzzle. It may not be China – but then again, neither is any other country.
At a moment when the US has stepped back from multilateralism, Europe is losing momentum, and India is doubling down on coal, middle powers like Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, and Turkey will help determine whether the world meets its climate goals. That is why President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s September 24 announcement in New York deserves closer attention.
Turkey’s recent climate policy trajectory has been unusually dynamic. After years of debate over whether it should be treated as a developed or developing country under the UN climate regime, Turkey finally ratified the Paris Agreement in 2021, committing to net zero by 2053.
Since then, climate governance has expanded rapidly: the ministry was renamed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change; a Climate Change Directorate was established; Turkey updated its initial NDC; a multi-stakeholder Climate Council was convened; and this year, Parliament passed the country’s first Climate Law. An emissions trading system is expected soon.
-
Global renewables goal slips off course after Trump, China moves
The IEA downgrades its forecast for renewables growth due to the US cutting renewable tax credits and China’s electricity market reforms -
After building huge new dam, Ethiopia warns of hydropower’s drought risk
Ethiopia wants to reduce heavy reliance on hydropower to diversify to solar and wind in the face of climate-induced droughts
Meanwhile, Turkey is campaigning – alongside Australia – to host COP31 in 2026. Climate change is also moving up the domestic agenda, driven by more frequent floods, droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. Surveys show that nearly 80 percent of Turkish citizens are concerned about climate change.
‘Business as usual’ baseline
Given this backdrop, one might have expected a stronger NDC. Instead, the targets presented fall short of genuine progress.
The full text has not yet been released, but the topline figure announced by Erdoğan is a 42 percent reduction from a reference scenario. The catch lies in the baseline. Without climate action, Turkey projects its emissions – 552 million tons in 2023 – to double in 12 years, reaching 1,109 million tons. The new target promises to cap that growth at 643 million tons by 2035.
On paper, this looks like a dramatic reduction. In practice, it locks in continued growth: emissions would still be 16 percent higher than in 2023, adding 7–8 million tons annually. Far from a cut, this is a pledge to deliver a “controlled increase” rather than a reduction.
At the Istanbul Policy Center, our recent modeling shows that if Turkey simply continues along its current path, emissions will hit 655 million tons by 2035. Strikingly, this “do nothing new” trajectory almost exactly matches the government’s pledge. Turkey’s new NDC offers no real deviation from business as usual.
Renewables on the rise but coal still big
That does not mean Turkey has done nothing. Renewable energy has grown substantially: in 2024, wind and solar accounted for 18 percent of electricity generation. Including hydro and geothermal, the share of non-fossil sources climbs to 45 percent. Electric vehicles now approach a 20 percent market share, rail electrification is increasing and building efficiency standards are tightening.
These trends have slowed emissions growth. But coal still supplies more than a third of Turkey’s electricity, and overall demand for power, vehicles, and industrial output continues to surge. Without an acceleration in renewables and electrification, emissions will remain on an upward track.
As China and EU disappoint, prospects of meeting 1.5C climate target fade
Most concerning, Turkey’s pledge is fundamentally inconsistent with its 2053 net-zero target.
The updated first NDC submitted in 2022 set 2038 as the country’s emissions peak. If emissions rise to over 650 million tons by then, cutting them to net zero within 15 years would require annual reductions exceeding 10 percent.
No country has ever sustained such rapid decarbonization. And with no plan to phase out coal, no surge in renewables, and no mainstreaming of the green transition, Turkey risks locking itself into a carbon-intensive path.
Turkey could cut emissions much faster
Yet the opportunity remains wide open. Turkey has abundant renewable resources, a young labor force, robust trade links, and access to international finance. At the Istanbul Policy Center, our Decarbonization Roadmap shows that Turkey could cut emissions to 35 percent below 2021 levels by 2035 by phasing out coal by 2036, installing 10 gigawatts of wind and solar annually, reducing fossil fuel use in buildings, and accelerating EV adoption.
None of this requires technological miracles – only political will, a clear declaration of economic transformation, and consistent policy tools.
The message is clear: Turkey’s new climate targets are not aligned with keeping global warming below 1.5C, 2C, or even 3C – and they fall far short of the country’s own 2053 net-zero pledge.
Yet with abundant renewables, strong public support, and clear economic advantages, Turkey has every reason to aim higher. The real question is not whether the country can decarbonize, but whether it will act decisively before the window of opportunity closes.
The post Turkey’s new climate pledge would control emissions growth, not offer real cuts appeared first on Climate Home News.
Turkey’s new climate pledge would control emissions growth, not offer real cuts
Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.
Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
An interview with author Catherine Coleman Flowers.
The fourth installment in our special Earth Day series
When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever.
David Ritter
So often in life, our most authentic moments of joy are the result of years of shared effort, and the culmination of a kind of deep faith in what is possible.
A few weeks ago, I had the honour of being in Canberra, along with some fellow environmentalists and scientists, to witness the enactment of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 by our federal parliament.
This was the moment that the Global Ocean Treaty—one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time—was given force through a domestic Australian law.
If you are part of the great Greenpeace family, you will know exactly why this was such a huge deal. The high seas make up around 60 per cent of the Earth’s surface and for too long, they have been subjected to open plunder. Now, for the first time in human history, there is an international instrument that enables the creation of massive high seas sanctuaries within which the ocean can be protected. This is a monumental collective achievement by Greenpeace and all the other groups who have campaigned for high seas marine sanctuaries for many years.
But as momentous as the ratification was, the parliamentary proceedings were distinctly lacking in drama or fanfare–so much so, that Labor MP backbencher Renee Coffey felt the need to gesture to those of us in the gallery with a grin, to indicate that the process was over and done.
The modesty of the moment had me thinking about the decades of quiet dedication by many hands that are invariably required to achieve great social change. In particular, I found myself thinking about researchers. So much of the expert academic work that underpins achievements like the Global Ocean Treaty is slow, painstaking, solitary—and often out of sight.
I think of the persistence and tenacity of researchers as an expression of love, founded in an authentic sense of wonder and curiosity about the world—and frequently linked to a deep ethical desire to protect that source of wonderment.
In 2007, one of the very first things I was given to read after starting with Greenpeace as an oceans campaigner in London was a report entitled Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves. Specific physical sensations can tend to stick in the mind from periods of personally significant transitions, and the tactile reminiscence of holding the thin cardboard of the modest grey cover of that report is deeply embedded in my memory. I suspect I still even have that original copy in a box somewhere.
Written by a team of scientists led by Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist from the University of York, the Roadmap provided the first scientifically informed vision of a large-scale global network of high seas marine sanctuaries, protecting the world’s oceans at scale. Of course, twenty years ago, this idea felt more like utopian science fiction, because there was no Global Oceans Treaty. But what seemed fanciful at the start of this century is now possible-–and I have every confidence the creation of large scale high seas marine sanctuaries will now happen through the application of ongoing campaigning effort—but we would never have gotten this far without the dedication of researchers, driven by their love of the oceans. And now here we are, with the ability for humanity to legally protect the high seas for the first time.
Campaigning and research so often work hand in hand like this: the one identifying the need and the solutions; the other driving the change. Because in a world of powerful vested interests, good science alone doesn’t shift decision makers—that takes activism and campaigning—but equally, there must be a basis of evidence and reason on which to build our public advocacy.
So, I want to take a moment to think with love and appreciation for everyone who has contributed to making this possible. I’ve never met the team of scientists who authored the original Roadmap, so belatedly but sincerely, then, to Leanne Mason, Julie P. Hawkins, Elizabeth Masden, Gwilym Rowlands, Jenny Storey and Anna Swift—and to every other researcher and scientist who has been involved in demonstrating why the Global Oceans Treaty has been so badly needed over the years—thank you for your commitment and devotion.
And to everyone out there who continues to believe that evidence and truth matter, and that our magnificent, fragile world deserves our respectful curiosity and study as an expression of our awe and enchantment, thank you for your conscientiousness.
When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever. You have Greenpeace’s deepest gratitude. Every day, we build on the foundations of your work and dedication. Thank you.
Q & A
I have been asked several times in recent weeks what the ongoing war means for the renewable energy transition in Australia.
While some corners of the fossil fuel lobby and the politicians captured by these vested interests have been very quick to use this crisis to call for more oil exploration and gas pipelines, the reality is that the current energy crisis has revealed the commonsense case for renewable energy.
As many, including climate and energy minister Chris Bowen have noted, renewable energy is affordable, inexhaustible, and sovereign—its supply cannot be blocked by warmongers or conflict. People intuitively know this; it’s why sales of electric cars have climbed to an all-time high, it’s why interest in rooftop solar and batteries has skyrocketed in recent months.
The reality is that oil and gas are to blame for much of the cost-of-living pain we’re feeling right now; fossil fuels are the disease, not the cure. If Australia were further along in our renewable energy transition and EV uptake, we would be much better insulated from petrol and gas price shocks and supply chain disruptions.
Yes, we need short-term solutions to ease the very real cost-of-living pressures that Australian communities and workers are facing as a result of fuel shortages. While replacement supplies is no doubt a valid step for now—Greenpeace is also backing taxes on the war profits of gas corporations to fund relief measures for Australians—in the long term, we will only get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel dependency and price volatility if we break free from fossil fuels and accelerate progress towards an energy system built on 100% renewable energy, backed by storage.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits