Assessing Turkey’s Climate Change Commitments: The Case of Turkey’s Energy Policy

Abstract

Climate change is increasingly recognized worldwide as a growing threat. The UN’s sustainable development goals and the Paris Conference COP 21 attest to this. Countries confront the challenge of managing the trade-off between energy-intensive growth and climate change effects. In this historical juncture, a renewable energy- based third industrial revolution is underway. In the post-COP 21 period, it is now imperative to analyze the non -compliance of signatories to their commitments towards climate action. Turkey is no exception to this trend. In this light, this paper examines the credibility of Turkey’s compliance with its commitments at the COP 21 with special focus on the public attitudes in Turkey towards climate change and the government’s non -adoption of climate action as a norm in its energy strategy documents and its energy policy practices. It concludes that regardless of Turkey’s COP 21 commitments and public perceptions on climate change, Turkish policy makers prioritize availability in its energy policy to foster economic growth

Keywords

• Sustainable Development, Climate Change, Energy Policy, Public Opinion, Turkey.

References

1. Coburn Palmer, “Stephen Hawking: Climate Change Worse Than Killer Asteroids Or Nuclear War”, at http://www.inquisitr.com/3153820/stephen-hawking-climate- change-worse-thankillerasteroids-or-nuclear-war/#kfY1DD5qakCBmSFM.99 ( last visited 09 August 2016).
2. Caroline Kuzemko, Michael F. Keating and Andreas Goldthau, The Global Energy Challenge: Environment, Development and Security, London, Palgrave, 2016, p. 1.
3. For an academic review on energy security literature discussing the concept various dimensions availability, affordability, efficiency, and environmental stewardship, see, Benjamin K. Sovacool and Marilyn A. Brown, “Competing Dimensions of Energy Security: An International Perspective”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 35 (2010), pp. 77-108.
4. Kuzemko, The Global Energy Challenge, p. 1.
5. Jeremy Rifkin, The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
6. See, Sue Grimmond, “Urbanization and Global Environmental Change: Local Effects of Urban Warming”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 173, No. 1 (2007), pp. 83-88; David Dodman, “Blaming Cities for Climate Change? An Analysis of Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol.21, No.1 (2009),pp. 185- 201; Perry Sadorsky, “The Effect of Urbanization on CO 2 Emissions in Emerging Economies”, Energy Economics Vol. 41 (2014), pp. 147-153.
7. Nihat Işık, Efe Can Kılıç, “Ulaştırma Sektöründe CO2 Emisyonu ve Enerji Ar- Ge Harcamaları İlişkisi”, Sosyoekonomi, Vol.22, No.22 (2014), pp.322-346; Carlos Chavez-Baeza and Claudia Sheinbaum-Pardo, “Sustainable Passenger Road Transport Scenarios to Reduce Fuel Consumption, Air Pollutants and GHG (greenhouse gas) Emissions in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area”, Energy, Vol.66 (2014), pp. 624-634; Kobe Boussauw and Thomas Vanoutrive, “Transport Policy in Belgium: Translating Sustainability Discourses into Unsustainable Outcomes”, Transport Policy, Vol.53 (2017), pp. 11-19.
8. Henning Steinfeld,et.al., Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006, pp. 79- 124; Pınar Demir and Yavuz Cevger “Küresel Isınma ve Hayvancılık Sektörü”, Veteriner Hekimler Derneği Dergisi, Vol. 78, No. 1 (2007), pp. 13-16; Karen A.Beauchemin, et al., “Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Production in Western Canada: A Case Study”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 103 ,No. 6 (2010), pp.371-379.

9. Kuzemko, The Global Energy Challenge, p.1.
10. See; A.Arnold, et.al., European Perceptions of Climate Change : Socio-Political Profiles to Inform A Cross- National Survey in France, Germany, Norway and the UK, Oxford: Climate Outreach, June 2016; See also, Juliet Pietsch and Ian McAllister, “‘A Diabolical Challenge’: Public Opinion and Climate Change Policy in Australia”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 19, No. 2 (2010), pp. 217- 236.
11. Arnold, European Perceptions of Climate Change, pp.31- 42; See also; Craig Morris and Arne Jungjohann, Energy Democracy Germany’s Energiewende to Renewables, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
12. For a similar study with a cross-country perspective see, Alina Averchenkova and Samuela Bassi, Beyond the Targets: Assessing the Political Credibility of Pledges for the Paris Agreement, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Policy Brief (February 2016).
13. Helen Milner and Dustin Tingley, “Public Opinion and Foreign Aid: A Review Essay”, International Interactions, Vol. 39, No.3 (2013), p.392.
14. Peter F. Trumbore, “Public Opinion as a Domestic Constraint in International Negotiations: Two-Level Games in the Anglo-Irish Peace Process”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 545-565
15. M. A. Boyer, “Issue Definition and Two-level Games: An Application to the American Foreign Policy Process”, Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Studies Association- Northeast: Boston, Mass (1996) as cited in Trumbore, “Public Opinion,” p.548; Xinyuan Dai, “Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism,” International Organization, Vol.59 (Spring 2005), pp.363-398.
16. Franziskus Von Lucke, Zehra Wellmann, and Thomas Diez, “What’s at stake in securitising climate change? Towards a differentiated approach”, Geopolitics, Vol.19, no.4 (2014): 857-884.
17. See; Volkan Ş. Ediger and Çiğdem Kentmen, “Enerjinin Toplumsal Boyutu ve Türk Halkının Enerji Tercihleri” ( Societal Dimension of Energy and Turkish Public’s Energy Preferences), Mülkiye Dergisi, Vol.34, No. 268 (2010),pp.282-300 ; Pınar Ertör-Akyazı, et al. “Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey” Energy Policy Vol.47 (2012),pp.309-320 ; Ebru Ş Canan-Sokullu, “Public Opinion on Climate Change as a Source of Human Insecurity”, Journal of Conflict Transformation & Security, Vol. 2, No. 2 (October 2012),pp. 240-256.
18. Roldan Muradian, Joan Martinez-Alier, and Humberto Correa, “International capital versus local population: The environmental conflict of the Tambogrande mining project, Peru”, Society &Natural Resources , Vol.16, No.9 (2003),pp.775-792.
19. Bruce Gilley, “Authoritarian environmentalism and China’s response to climate change”, Environmental Politics, Vol.21, No. 2 (2012),pp. 287-307.
20. Ediger and Kentment, “Enerjinin Toplumsal Boyutu ve Türk Halkının Enerji Tercihleri”, pp.1-2. See also; David F.Layton and Richard A. Levine, “How much does the far future matter? A hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the public’s willingness to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 98, No.463 (2011), pp.533-544.
21. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Dünya ve Ülkemiz Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Görünümü ( World and Our Country’s Energy and Natural Resources Outlook) , October 2016, http://www.enerji.gov.tr/Resources/Sites/1/Pages/ Sayi_14/Sayi_14.html (27 March 2017).
22. See, Mert Bilgin, “Energy Policy in Turkey: Security, Markets, Supplies and Pipelines”, Turkish Studies, Vol.12, No. 3,(2011),pp.399-417; Ahmet K. Han, “Turkey’s Energy Strategy and the Middle East: Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” Turkish Studies, 12(4), (2011),pp.603-617; Emre İşeri and Alper Almaz, “Turkey’s Energy Strategy and the Southern Gas Corridor,” Caspian Report Vol.5, (2013),pp.84-95.
23. Emre İşeri and Cem Özen, “Turkey’s Nuclear Energy Policy: Towards a Sustainable Energy Mix”, International Journal of Nuclear Governance Economy and Ecology, 4(1), (2013): 41-58.
24. Nahide Konak, “The Emergence of Environmental Concerns and the Judicial System: River-based Hydro Schemes in Turkey,” The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, Vol.7, No. 6 (2011),pp.207-220.
25. Fikret Adaman and Bengi Akbulut, “The Unbearable Appeal of Modernization: The Fetish of Growth,” Heinrich Böll Stiftung Publication, accessed March 22, 2015. fetish-growth-publikationen (last visited 25.03.2017).
26. ENVER, Enerji Verimliliği Strateji Belgesi 2010-2023 (Energy Effciency Strategic Document 2010-2023), February 2012, http://www.enver.org.tr/UserFiles/ Article/7d3a2037-d5fe-4c28-8031-363aefd325d1.pdf (last visited 27.03.2017).
27. Tülin Keskin, “Enerji Verimliliği” (Energy Efficiency), Türkiye’nin Enerji Görünümü 2016 (Turkey’s Energy Outlook 2016), TMMOB, April 2016, pp. 281-290.
28. Energy Charter Secreteriat, In-Depth Energy Efficiency Policy Review of the Republic Turkey, (Bulgaria: Spotinov Print Ltd, 2014),p.74.
29. International Energy Agency (IEA), “Decoupling of global emissions and economic growth confirmed”, 16 March 2016, https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/ pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth- confirmed.html (last visited 09 August 2016)
30. International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights. 2015. CO2EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2015.pdf (last visited 09 August 2016)
31. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
32. United Nations (UN), “UN and Climate Change”, http://www.un.org/climatechange/ the-science/ (last visited 09.08.2016)
33. Denise Garcia, “Warming to a redefinition of international security: The consolidation of a norm concerning climate change”, International Relations, Vol.24, No.3 (2010), pp. 271-292.
34. IEA, “Energy Poverty”, http://www.iea.org/topics/energypoverty/ (last visited 09 August 2016)
35. http://www.se4all.org/
36. Fiona Harvey, “Paris climate change agreement: the world’s greatest diplomatic success”, Guardian, 14 December 2015 , https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/ dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations (09 August 2016)
37. Center for Climate and Solutions, “Outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris”, December 2015, http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/cop-21-paris-summary- 02-2016-final.pdf (09 August 2016)
38. Sam Bickersteth, “After Paris how are countries tackling climate change ?”, 25 July 2016, http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/25/after-paris-how-are-countries- tackling-climate-change/ (09 August 2016).
39. Thierry Balzacq, Sarah Léonard and Jan Ruzicka, “‘Securitization’ revisited: theory and cases”, International Relations, online first (5 August 2015).
40. Pew Research Center, Climate Change Report 2015, http://www.pewglobal. org/files/2015/11/Pew-Research-Center-Climate-Change-Report-FINAL- November-5-2015.pdf
41. Ümit Şahin and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün, İklim Değişikliği ve Medya ( İklim Değişikliği ve Medya), December 2016, http://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ Iklim_Degisikligi_ve_Medya_Politika_Notu_201621.pdf (last visited 12 February 2017).
42. See; Ziya Öniş and Mustafa Kutlay, “Rising Powers in a Changing Global Order: the political economy of Turkey in the age of BRICs”, Third World Quarterly, Vol.34, No.8 (2013), pp.1409-1426; Basak Kus, “Financial Citizenship and the Hidden Crisis of the Working Class in the ‘New Turkey’ ”, Middle East Report,Vol. 278 (Spring 2016),pp.40- 48.
43. Pew Research Center, Climate Change Report
44. EDAM Public Opinion Survey of Turkish Foreign Policy 2015/3, http://www.edam. org.tr/en/File?id=3172 (last visited 09 August 2016)
45. As an indicator identifying to extent of decoupling between energy consumption and economic growth, energy-intensity is the ratio between gross inland energy consumption and GDP. With a slight upward trend, Turkey’s energy intensity (0,113 koe) is higher than Europe average (0.105 koe) with a downward trend. This data implies that Turkey is not doing well with regard to efficient use of energy resources, see; Enerdata, “Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2016”,https://yearbook.enerdata.net/energy-intensity- GDP-by-region.html; primary-energy-intensity-1 (last visited 09 August 2016).
46. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/total
47. ETKB, Stratejik Plan 2010-2014; ETKB, Stratejik Plan 2015-2019.
48. ETKB, Stratejik Plan 2010-2014, pp.41-49.
49. ETKB, Stratejik Plan 2015-2019, pp. 53-61. 57 Ibid, pp. 62-63.
50. Maja Rotter, et.al., Stakeholder Participation in Adaptation to Climate Change – Lessons and Experience from Germany. Environmental research of the German Federal Ministry of the environment, nature conservatıon and nuclear safety, Project-no. (fkz) 3711 41 105 (2012), p.48. Available at http://www.uba.de/uba-info-medien-e/4558.html
51. For debates on enviromental debates on Turkey’s nuclear policy, see Emre İşeri, Defne Günay and Alper Almaz, “Contending narratives on the sustainability of nuclear energy in Turkey”, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2017, DOI: 10.1177/2399654417704199
52. Hande Paker, “ Yerelden Küresele, Kömürden İklim Mücadelesine” ( From Local to Global, From Coal to Climate Action), 13 May 2016, http://iklimadaleti. org/?p=makale&n=vakit-simdi (last visited 09 August 2016)
53. ETKB, Arz Güvenliği Strateji Belgesi ( Strategy Document on Supply Security) ,2009, http://www.enerji.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FBelge%2FArz_ Guvenligi_Strateji_Belgesi.pdf ( last visited 09 August 2016)
54. “Kilci: “2012 Yılını Kömür Yılı İlan Ettik”” (Kilici: We declared 2012 as the year of coal), Energy World , 19 February 2014.
55. WWF, “Paris anlaşması sonrası Türkiye’de kömüre yer var mı?” ( Is there any place for Turkey in the post-Paris agreement), 26 July 2016, http://awsassets.wwftr.panda.org/ downloads/paris_anlamasi_sonrasi_turkiye.pdf (last visited 09 August 2016).
56. TEPAV, Enerji Politikaları ve Yatırımlar Üzerindeki Etkisi, n/a. Available at http:// www.tepav.org.tr/tr/yayin/s/984
57. Ümit Şahin (ed.), Kömür Raporu: İklim Değişikliği, Ekonomi ve Sağlık açısından Türkiye’nin Kömür Politikaları ( Coal Report: Turkey’s Coal Policies through Climate Change, Economy and Health Perspectives), İstanbul,IPC, 2015, pp.7-8 ; http://ipc. sabanciuniv.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Komur-Raporu.pdf (last visited 09 July 2016)
58. WWF, “Paris anlaşması sonrası Türkiye’de kömüre yer var mı ?” ( Is there any place for coal in Turkey after theParis agreement ?).
59. Cüneyt Kozakoğlu, “10 grafikte BM İklim Değişikliği Konferansı ve Türkiye,” BBC Türkçe, 30 November 2015.
60. “Enerjide istihdam yerli kömürden sağlanıyor” ( Employment in energy sourced from local coal), Habertürk, 10 June 2016, http://www.haberturk.com/ekonomi/enerji/ haber/1251859-enerjide-istihdam-yerli-komurden-saglaniyor ( last visited 28.03.2017).
61. See, S. Keleş and S. Bilgen, “Renewable energy sources in Turkey for climate change mitigation and energy sustainability”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol.16, No. 7 (2012),pp.5199-5206 ; Hüseyin Benli, “Potential of renewable energy in electrical energy production and sustainable energy development of Turkey: Performance and policies”, Renewable Energy, Vol.50 (2013),pp.33-46 ; Huseyin Serencam and Ugur Serencam, “ Toward a sustainable energy future in Turkey: An environmental perspective”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 27 (2013), pp. 325-333.
62. IPC, Low Carbon Development Pathways and Priorities for Turkey Climate-Friendly Development in Turkey: A Macro Level Evaluation , 2015, http://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/en/ wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Low-Carbon-Report1.pdf (last visited 09 July 2016).
63. Erinç Yeldan, “ ‘Başka’ Sanayileşme Mümkün” ( Another industrialization is possible), Cumhuriyet, 16 December 2015, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/448850/_ Baska__sanayilesme_mumkun.html (last visited 09 July 2016)