Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
Earlier this month, I attended an online panel hosted by the Columbia Global Center in Istanbul titled “Local to Global: Türkiye’s Road to COP30.” Moderated by Columbia University’s Virginia Page Fortna, the event featured Istanbul Policy Center’s Ümit Şahin, Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe’s Özlem Katısöz, and Boğaziçi University’s Levent Kurnaz.
The discussion was engaging and, at times, thought-provoking. Yet the overall conclusion was unmistakable: Türkiye’s climate policy, according to the speakers, is far too modest. They highlighted the tension between mitigation and adaptation, suggested that Ankara’s aspiration to host COP31 was more about optics than substance, and essentially accused the authorities of paying lip service to fighting climate change without undertaking bold structural reforms.
With all due respect, this narrative exposes a recurring blind spot in climate activism. The problem is not the passion or the good intentions – it is the persistent tendency to detach climate policy from the broader context in which it must operate. Environmental policy does not exist in isolation. It is intertwined with energy security, economic development and the question of justice between developed and developing nations. Ignoring this complexity leads to unfair judgments and, worse, unrealistic policy prescriptions.
Let’s focus on Türkiye, since the event itself was framed around the Turkish case. One of the panelists voiced staunch opposition to nuclear power, which Türkiye is expected to begin utilizing by the end of 2025. Yet the argument against nuclear energy is unconvincing when examined in Türkiye’s actual circumstances. This is a developing country with a population exceeding 85 million and steadily rising energy consumption. Rapid urbanization, a strong manufacturing base, and the rise of electric vehicles – including Türkiye’s own Togg – are increasing household and industrial demand for electricity.
Renewables alone cannot shoulder this load. To be fair, Türkiye has not ignored them. Today, around 60% of the country’s electricity production already comes from renewable resources, primarily hydro, wind, and solar. Moreover, Türkiye has established a robust industrial infrastructure: it is Europe’s sixth-largest producer of wind energy equipment, including turbines, and has successfully attracted global investment into its clean energy sector. These achievements rarely get the recognition they deserve in international debates.
What is often missing from climate activism is an appreciation of fairness. Developed nations, which grew wealthy over the past two centuries by burning coal and oil, are now applauded for setting ambitious climate targets. Yet many of them have outsourced carbon-intensive industries to developing countries. They enjoy the benefits of deindustrialization at home while expecting nations like Türkiye to follow the same green trajectory without having enjoyed comparable levels of prosperity.
Türkiye’s historical responsibility for carbon emissions is negligible compared to that of the United States, Europe or even China. It is misleading to hold Ankara to the same standards as countries that have emitted greenhouse gases for centuries and continue to dominate global consumption patterns. Development justice demands a different conversation – one that recognizes that emerging economies cannot simply replicate Western models without undermining their own economic security and social stability.
Consider another overlooked factor: Türkiye’s chronic current account deficit. A large portion of this deficit comes from energy imports, especially fossil fuels. This is not just an environmental issue – it is a national security concern. Reducing dependence on foreign energy is essential to achieving economic stability and strategic autonomy. In this context, nuclear energy and renewable expansion are not luxuries or “greenwashing” tactics; they are vital components of national resilience. And here, innovative technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) should also enter the debate. SMRs, with their lower upfront costs, scalability and safety advantages, could complement Türkiye’s energy diversification strategy. For a country balancing climate goals with growth imperatives, SMRs represent a realistic pathway to accelerate decarbonization while ensuring reliable baseload power.
This is why blanket opposition to nuclear power – or dismissive critiques of Türkiye’s policies – fail to resonate with the wider population. To persuade citizens, climate policies must be compatible with real-life conditions. At the end of the day, telling people they should go back to the stone age is not really a viable option. A family that struggles with energy bills or a factory owner who competes in global markets will not be swayed by abstract calls for “greater ambition.” They will support climate action only if it makes sense economically and socially, not just environmentally.
The real challenge, then, is not whether Türkiye is ambitious enough on paper but whether it can implement policies that balance environmental responsibility with growth, competitiveness and fairness. That balance is the key to sustainable climate action – not only in Türkiye but across the developing world.
As Türkiye positions itself on the global stage – hosting COP30-related discussions and aiming for COP31 – it has a unique opportunity to champion this perspective. By articulating a vision of climate policy that integrates mitigation, adaptation, and development justice, Ankara can demonstrate leadership that goes beyond rhetoric. It can show that credible climate action is not about copying the policies of wealthy nations but about designing strategies that are both ambitious and realistic.
Climate activism must embrace this nuance if it is to succeed. Otherwise, it risks alienating the very societies whose participation it needs most. In a turbulent world where energy security, economic growth and environmental responsibility are inseparable, countries like Türkiye remind us of a simple truth: climate policy cannot work in a vacuum. It must work in the real world.
