Kamu Maliyesi Perspektifinden İklim Finansmanı: Küresel Yük Paylaşımı ve Mali Adalet

Öz

İklim değişikliğiyle mücadele, yüksek finansman gereksinimi nedeniyle önemli bir küresel politika sorunudur. Temel tartışma, bu yükün ülkeler arasında nasıl paylaşılacağıdır. Mevcut sistemin gönüllü katkılara dayanması, adil yük paylaşımı sorununu gündemde tutmaktadır. Bu çalışma, küresel iklim finansmanını kamu maliyesi çerçevesinde incelemekte ve tarihsel sorumluluk, ekonomik kapasite ve iklim kırılganlığı olmak üzere üç temel kriteri bütünleştiren hibrit bir katkı modeli oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada senaryo analizi yöntemi kullanılarak söz konusu kriterlere verilen farklı normatif ağırlıkların ülkelerin göreli katkı konumlarını nasıl etkilediği değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmada farklı ekonomik ve iklim özelliklerini temsil eden Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Çin, Türkiye ve Bangladeş örnek ülkeleri üzerinden ampirik bir uygulama yapılmıştır. Bulgular, tarihsel olarak yüksek emisyonlara sahip gelişmiş ekonomilerin tüm senaryolarda net katkı sağlayıcı konumda olduğunu, buna karşılık düşük emisyonlu ve yüksek kırılganlığa sahip ülkelerin iklim finansmanının potansiyel yararlanıcıları olarak ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Türkiye gibi orta gelirli ekonomiler ise kriterlere verilen ağırlıklara bağlı olarak değişebilen ara bir konumda yer almaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İklim finansmanı
• kamu maliyesi
• yük paylaşımı
• tarihsel sorumluluk
• iklim kırılganlığı

Climate Finance from a Public Finance Perspective: Global Burden Sharing and Fiscal Justice

Öz

Climate change mitigation represents a major global policy challenge due to its high financing requirements. The central debate concerns how this financial burden should be shared among countries. The current system’s reliance on voluntary contributions keeps the issue of equitable burden sharing on the agenda. This study examines global climate finance within a public finance framework and aims to develop a hybrid contribution model that integrates three key criteria: historical responsibility, economic capacity, and climate vulnerability. Using a scenario analysis approach, the study evaluates how different normative weightings assigned to these criteria affect countries’ relative contribution positions. An empirical illustration is conducted using representative countries with diverse economic and climate characteristics, including the United States, China, Türkiye, and Bangladesh. The findings indicate that large economies with high historical emissions consistently appear as net contributors across all scenarios, while countries with low emissions and high climate vulnerability emerge as potential beneficiaries of climate finance mechanisms. Middle-income economies such as Türkiye occupy an intermediate position in which contribution status varies depending on the weighting assigned to responsibility, capacity, and vulnerability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Climate finance
• public finance
• burden sharing
• historical responsibility
• climate vulnerability

Kaynakça

1. Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., & Kartha, S. (2009). The greenhouse development rights framework. Climate and Development, 1(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2009.0010 google scholar
2. Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University Press. google scholar
3. Beynon, J. (2025). Climate finance allocations and vulnerability (CGD Working Paper No. 735). Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/climate-finance-allocations-and-vulnerability. (08.03.2026) google scholar
4. Browne, K. E. (2022). Rethinking governance in international climate finance: Structural change and alternative approaches. WIREs Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.795 google scholar
5. Caney, S. (2010). Justice and the future: Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230903326331 google scholar
6. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Minx, J. C., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., & Zwickel, T. (Eds.). IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416 google scholar
7. European Commission. (2023, October 31). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the European carbon market in 2022 pursuant to Articles 10(5) and 21(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC (COM(2023) 654 final; SWD(2023) 346 final). European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications. (03.03.2026) google scholar
8. Green Climate Fund. (2024). Annual report 2023. Green Climate Fund. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf- annual-report-2023-040919.pdf. (07.03.2026) google scholar

9. Guillaumont, P. (2015). Measuring vulnerability to climate change for allocating funds for adaptation (FERDI Working Paper No. P136). Fondation pour les Études et Recherches sur le Développement International. google scholar
10. High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. (2017). Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.CD&country=# .(09.03.2026) https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking/vulnerability. (09.03.2026) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-cumulative-co2?country=USA~CHN~TUR~BGD. (09.03.2026) google scholar
11. IEA. (2021). Net zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy sector. Paris: International Energy Agency. google scholar
12. IMF. (2023). Fiscal Monitor: Climate Crossroads – Fiscal policies in a warming world (Chapter 1). International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fiscal-monitor/2023/october/english/ch1.pdf. (06.03.2026) google scholar
13. IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
14. Karakaya, E., Akkoyun, G., & Hiçyılmaz, B. (2023). Sera gazı emisyonu azaltımı için karbonun fiyatlanması: Karbon vergisi mi emisyon ticareti mi? Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(4), 813–841. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1367596 google scholar
15. Kaul, I., Grunberg, I., & Stern, M. (Eds.). (1999). Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195130529.001.0001 google scholar
16. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570–575. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2937 google scholar
17. Musgrave, R. A., & Musgrave, P. B. (1989). Public finance in theory and practice (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. google scholar
18. ND-GAIN. (2023). Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative country Index. University of Notre Dame. https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index google scholar
19. Nordhaus, W. (2015). Climate clubs: Overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1339–1370. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.15000001 google scholar
20. OECD (2020). Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2013-18. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f0773d55-en. google scholar
21. OECD (2024). Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2013-2022. Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19150727-en google scholar
22. OECD. (2020). Green budgeting and tax policy tools to support a green recovery. Paris: OECD Publishing. google scholar
23. OECD. (2023). Effective carbon rates 2023: Pricing greenhouse gas emissions through taxes and emissions trading (OECD Series on Carbon Pricing and Energy Taxation). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b84d5b36-en google scholar
24. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press. google scholar
25. Özdemir, H., & Köse, M. (2024). Karbon vergisi, emisyon ticaret sistemi ve sınırda karbon düzenlemesi: Türkiye açısından değerlendirmeler. Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 518–541. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1464955 google scholar
26. Pickering, J., Jotzo, F., & Wood, P. J. (2015). Splitting the difference: Can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort? Centre for Climate Economics & Policy Working Paper No. 1504, Australian National University. google scholar
27. Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan. google scholar
28. Roberts, E., & Pelling, M. (2016). Climate change-related loss and damage: Translating the global policy agenda for national policy processes. Climate and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1184608 google scholar
29. Roberts, J. T., & Weikmans, R. (2017). Postface: Fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9347-4 google scholar
30. Sandler, T. (2002). Global collective action. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
31. Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29729990. (25.02.2026) google scholar
32. Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). Knowledge as a global public good. In I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, & M. A. Stern (Eds.), Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century (pp. 308–325). Oxford University Press. google scholar
33. UNFCCC (2015), Paris Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en google scholar
34. UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. (02.03.2026) google scholar
35. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2023). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-eighth session (COP28). Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. google scholar
36. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1997). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-kyoto-protocol google scholar
37. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2013). The nineteenth session of the Conference of the Parties, Warsaw, Poland. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/past-conferences/warsaw-climate-change-conference- november-2013/cop-19/cop-19-reports google scholar
38. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2022). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-seventh session (COP27). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/documents. (07.03.2026) google scholar
39. Weitzman, M. L. (2009). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.1.1 google scholar