İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye'de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi

Selçuk Çetin

doi:10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210

EN TR

Right-Wing Political Discourses in Türkiye Against The Climate Crisis: The New Welfare Party

Öz

The climate crisis is one of the most challenging political issues of our time. However, this crisis is rejected by far-right and populist right-wing political actors beyond the rising center-right parties around the world. These movements, which have increased their influence, come to power, or become partners in power, are transforming the political sphere. In this study, the anti-climate crisis discourses of the New Welfare Party (YRP), which we position as a part of the far-right politics in Türkiye, are analyzed through critical discourse analysis. Accordingly, it is found that scientific reality is rejected, and unscientific discourses are intensively produced. Moreover, YRP defends the narrative of national independence. For this reason, it rejects climate agreements that it thinks are imposed by the West. Climate policies are also evaluated as an imposition of global Zionist Projects. The research also offers some discussion proposals for right-based politics in the context of the climate crisis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

climate crisis, right-wing populism, climate politics, critical discourse analysis, newly welfare party

İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye'de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi

Öz

İklim krizi, içinden geçmekte olduğumuz dönemin en çetrefilli politik sorunlarından birisini teşkil etmektedir. Ancak bu kriz hali dünyada yükselmekte olan merkez sağ partilerin dışındaki aşırı sağ ve popülist sağ siyasal aktörler tarafından reddedilmektedir. Etki güçleri artan, iktidara gelen ya da iktidar ortağı olan bu akımlar siyasal alanı da dönüştürmektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de aşırı sağ siyasetin bir parçası olarak konumlandırdığımız Yeniden Refah Partisi (YRP)’nin iklim krizi karşıtı söylemleri eleştirel söylem analizi ile incelenmiştir. Buna göre, bilimsel gerçekliğin reddedildiği, bilim dışı söylemlerin yoğun bir şekilde üretildiği bulgulanmıştır. Ayrıca YRP, ulusal bağımsızlık anlatısını savunmaktadır. Bu nedenle Batıdan dayatıldığını düşündüğü iklim anlaşmalarını reddetmektedir. İklim politikaları aynı zamanda küresel Siyonist Projelerin bir dayatması olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada iklim krizi özelinde hak temelli bir siyasete yönelik birkaç tartışma önerileri de sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

iklim krizi, sağ popülizm, iklim siyaseti, eleştirel söylem analizi, yeniden refah partisi

Kaynakça

Antonio, R. J., & Brulle, R. J. (2011). The unbearable lightness of politics: Climate change denial and political polarization. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01199.x
Bakırcı, K. (2015). İstanbul Sözleşmesi. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 73(4), 133–144.
Bárdos, D., & Tuboly, A. T. (2025). Science, pseudoscience, and the demarcation problem. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009429597
BBC Türkçe. (2020, Nisan 24). Trump'ın koronavirüse karşı 'vücuda dezenfektan enjekte edilmesi' ve 'ultraviyole ışık verilmesi' tavsiyeleri işe yarar mı? BBC News Türkçe. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-52418417
Bora, T. (2018). Zamanın kelimeleri. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
Burschel, M. (2025). Narcissistic dimensions of market economy: Implications and effects from a social work perspective. IU Discussion Papers – Sozialwissenschaften, No. 1. IU Internationale Hochschule. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388847070
Carr, W., Patterson, M., Yung, L., & Spencer, D. (2012). The faithful skeptics: Evangelical religious beliefs and perceptions of climate change. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 6(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v6i3.276
Chavda, V. P., Sonak, S. S., Munshi, N. K., & Dhamade, P. N. (2022). Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 62887–62912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21967-4
Clarke, E. J. R., Ling, M., Kothe, E. J., Klas, A., & Richardson, B. (2019). Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right‐wing ideologies on climate change beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(6), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12585

Defoe, T. F. (2025). Evangelicals and global warming. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 84, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12578
Demir, O., & Kıvrak, E. (2024). Yeniden Refah Partisi: Kuramsal bir değerlendirme. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1475914
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2015). Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215571908
Eslen-Ziya, H. (2022). Knowledge, counter-knowledge, pseudo-science in populism. In H. Eslen-Ziya & A. Giorgi (Eds.), Populism and science in Europe (pp 25–41). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97535-7_2
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1996). Language and power (10th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012). Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: Political partisanship and political ideology. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 712–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.698887
Fiorino, D. J. (2022). Climate change and right-wing populism in the United States. Environmental Politics, 31(5), 801–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.2018854
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017). Livestock solutions for climate change. FAO. https://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/
Forchtner, B. (2019). Climate change and the far right. WIREs Climate Change, 10(5), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.604
Forchtner, B., Kroneder, A., & Wetzel, D. (2018). Being skeptical? Exploring far-right climate-change communication in Germany. Environmental Communication, 12(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1470546
Haas, T. (2024). On the links between climate scepticism and right-wing populism (RWP): An explanatory approach based on cultural political economy (CPE). New Political Economy, 29(3), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2275017
Hackett, C., Grim, B. J., Skirbekk, V., Stonawski, M., & Goujon, A. (2011). Global Christianity: A report on the size and distribution of the world’s Christian population. Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. https://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/
Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 61–78). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Hansson, S. O. (2018). Dealing with climate science denialism: Experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience. Climate Policy, 18(9), 1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1415197
Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002
http 1: Erbakan, F. (2021, Ekim 5). Paris İklim Anlaşması Uyarısı. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yJE4ozyi28 (Erişim tarihi: 14 Ekim 2024).
http 2: Erbakan, F. (21 Aralık 2021). Yeniden Refah Partisi Genel Başkanı Dr. Fatih Erbakan, DSÖ, aşılama süreci ve Paris İklim Anlaşması ile ilgili basın toplantısı düzenliyor. https://www.facebook.com/ankaramasasi/videos/yeniden-refah-partisi-genel-başkanı-drfatih-erbakan-dsö-aşılama-süreci-ve-paris-/921580735231780/?locale=hi_IN (Erişim tarihi: 14 Ekim 2024).
http 3: Erbakan, F. (2023, Ağustos 29). İklim değişikliği insanlığı ifsad etmek için bir bahanedir! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuohONioBY8 (Erişim tarihi: 14 Ekim 2024).
http 4: Erbakan, F. (2023, Eylül 14). İklim Değişikliği! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwjDlIQomhY (Erişim tarihi: 14 Ekim 2024).
http 5: Aşıla, M. (2024, Şubat 8). Siyonizm şimdi de “iklim krizi” kisvesi altında çok daha tehlikeli bir planla karşımızda… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqT_7obJJXM&t=11s (Erişim tarihi: 14 Ekim 2024).
http 6: Erbakan, F. (t.y). 1000 Marketin Zararı Yine Milletin Sırtına Kalacak. http://yenidenrefahankara.org.tr/mpage/1000-marketin-zarari-yine-milletin-sirtina-kalacak/1926 (Erişim tarihi: 14 Ekim 2024).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, et al., Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Full_Report_HR.pdf
İnceloğlu, Y.G., & Çomak, N. A. (2016). Teun A. van Dijk. In Y.G.İnceoğlu & N.A.Çomak (Ed.), Metin çözümlemeleri (ss. 19-81). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları
İslam ve İhsan. (2018, Aralık 3). İfsad ne demek? https://www.islamveihsan.com/ifsat-ne-demek.html (Erişim tarihi: 5 Aralık 2024)
Jett, J., Raymond, L., & Hennes, E. P. (2023). Process skeptical populist framing of climate change in right-leaning media. Environmental Politics, 33(5), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2293433
Kanadıkırık, H. (2023). Şüphecilik, inkârcılık ve eko-faşizm: İklim değişikliğine uyum politikalarının kâbusu üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Tarsus Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 86–100.
Karaduman, S. (2017). Eleştirel söylem çözümlemesinin eleştirel haber araştırmalarına katkısı ve sunduğu perspektif. Maltepe Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 31–46.
Kasapçopur, Ö. (2020). Science and pseudoscience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Turkish Archives of Pediatrics, 55(4), 335–336. https://doi.org/10.14744/TurkPediatriArs.2020.35902
Keleş, D., & Onay Çöker, D. (2021). İslamcı basında İstanbul Sözleşmesi karşıtlığının izlekleri: Milli Gazete örneği. Kültür ve İletişim, 24(2), 372–405. https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.915364
Krange, O., Kaltenborn, B. P., & Hultman, M. (2021). “Don’t confuse me with facts”—How right-wing populism affects trust in agencies advocating anthropogenic climate change as a reality. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, 255. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00930-7
Kulin, J. (2024). Climate whataboutism and rightwing populism: How emissions blame-shifting translates nationalist attitudes into climate policy opposition. Environmental Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2024.2431393
Kulin, J., & Johansson Sevä, I. (2024). Rightwing populist attitudes and public support for climate policies in Western Europe: Widening the scope using the European Social Survey. PLOS Climate, 3(10), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000443
Kulin, J., Johansson Sevä, I., & Dunlap, R. E. (2021). Nationalist ideology, rightwing populism, and public views about climate change in Europe. Environmental Politics, 30(7), 1111–1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1898879
Ladyman, J. (2013). Toward a demarcation of science from pseudoscience. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 45–60). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lewandowsky, S. (2021). Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lloyd, E. (2018). The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: Simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese, 195(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
Lockwood, B., & Lockwood, M. (2022). How do right-wing populist parties influence climate and renewable energy policies? Evidence from OECD countries. Global Environmental Politics, 22(3), 12–37. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00659
Lockwood, M. (2018). Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411
Macgregor-Bowles, I., & Bowles, D. C. (2017). Trump, Brexit, right-wing anti-globalisation, and an uncertain future for public health. AIMS Public Health, 4(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2017.2.139
Margolis, M. F. (2020). Who wants to make America great again? Understanding evangelical support for Donald Trump. Politics and Religion, 13(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048319000208
Martí, G. (2019). The unexpected orthodoxy of Donald J. Trump: White Evangelical support for the 45th President of the United States. Sociology of Religion, 80(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sry056
McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2016). Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1090371
Oğuz, M. C. (2024). Komplo güdümlü siyasal partilerin yükselişi ve Türkiye’den Yeniden Refah Partisi örneği. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(3), 848–862. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1526828
Phillis, M., & McDermott, J. (2025, Şubat 27). After a month of Trump’s pro-oil and gas moves, Dems target his energy emergency. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-energy-fossil-fuels-climate-change-lng-oil-gas-960ceedcd9d55d2a658b5c6b270ee632
Pongiglione, F., & Martini, C. (2022). Climate change and culpable ignorance: The case of pseudoscience. Social Epistemology, 36(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2052994
Popli, N. (2025, January 21). What happened the last time Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement. Time. https://time.com/7208955/trump-paris-climate-agreement-withdraw-impact/
Rekker, R. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989193
Samuelsohn, D. (2016, September 26). Fact: Trump claimed climate change is a hoax created by China. The Politico. https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/fact-trump-claimed-climate-change-is-a-hoax-created-by-china-228711
Stott, M., & Pooler, M. (2025, January 25). Argentina’s election: A climate change denier who wants to shut the central bank. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3a2b087d-0e54-414b-aa3a-0f23b15eeabe
Szabados, K. (2019). Can we win the war on science? Understanding the link between political populism and anti-science politics. Populism, 2(2), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-02021028
Şah, U. (2020). Eleştirel söylem analizi: Temel yaklaşımlar. Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7, 210–231. https://doi.org/10.46250/kulturder.819362
T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı İletişim Başkanlığı. (2021, Mart 21). Türkiye’nin İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nden çekilmesine ilişkin açıklama. https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/turkce/haberler/detay/turkiyenin-istanbul-sozlesmesinden-cekilmesine-iliskin-aciklama (Erişim tarihi: 11 Aralık 2024).
Temiz, D. (2023, Ekim 3). Fatih Erbakan’ın iklim değişikliğiyle ilgili iddiaları gerçeği yansıtıyor mu? Teyit. https://teyit.org/demec-kontrolu/fatih-erbakanin-iklim-degisikligiyle-ilgili-iddialari-gercegi-yansitiyor-mu (Erişim tarihi: 20 Kasım 2024).
Torcello, L. (2012). The trouble with pseudoskepticism.
Torcello, L. (2016). The ethics of belief, cognition, and climate change pseudoskepticism: Implications for public discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 19–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12179
Torcello, L. (2020). Science denial, pseudoskepticism, and philosophical deficits undermining public understanding of science: A response to Sharon E. Mason. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 9(9), 1–9. https://wp.me/p1Bfg0-5ke
Türk Dil Kurumu. (2024a). Fıtrat. Türk Dil Kurumu Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/?ara=fıtrat (Erişim tarihi: 5 Ocak 2024).
Türk Dil Kurumu. (2024b). Telef Etmek. Türk Dil Kurumu Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/?ara=telef etmek (Erişim tarihi: 5 Ocak 2024).
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Welsch, H. (2025). Are national climate change mitigation pledges shaped by citizens’ mitigation preferences? Evidence from globally representative data. Ecological Economics, 230, 108520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108520
Wodak, R. (2019). The trajectory of far-right populism – a discourse – analytical perspective. In The far right and the environment (pp 21-37). Routledge.
Yan, P., Schroeder, R., & Stier, S. (2022). Is there a link between climate change scepticism and populism? An analysis of web tracking and survey data from Europe and the US. Information, Communication & Society, 25(10), 1400–1439. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1864005
Yüksek Seçim Kurulu. (2024). 31 Mart 2024 Mahalli İdareler Genel Seçimi: Belediye Meclisi Üyeliği Seçim Sonuçları. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/
Zaleha, B. D., & Szasz, A. (2015). Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(5), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215599789

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Çevresel İletişim

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Selçuk Çetin ^*
0000-0002-2110-0874
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

4 Temmuz 2025

Gönderilme Tarihi

30 Mart 2025

Kabul Tarihi

29 Mayıs 2025

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2025 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA48MY69BZ

APA

Çetin, S. (2025). İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi. Moment Dergi, 12(1), 187-210. https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210

AMA

1.Çetin S. İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi. MOMENT. 2025;12(1):187-210. doi:10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210

Chicago

Çetin, Selçuk. 2025. “İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi”. Moment Dergi 12 (1): 187-210. https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210.

EndNote

Çetin S (01 Temmuz 2025) İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi. Moment Dergi 12 1 187–210.

IEEE

[1]S. Çetin, “İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi”, MOMENT, c. 12, sy 1, ss. 187–210, Tem. 2025, doi: 10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210.

ISNAD

Çetin, Selçuk. “İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi”. Moment Dergi 12/1 (01 Temmuz 2025): 187-210. https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210.

JAMA

1.Çetin S. İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi. MOMENT. 2025;12:187–210.

MLA

Çetin, Selçuk. “İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi”. Moment Dergi, c. 12, sy 1, Temmuz 2025, ss. 187-10, doi:10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210.

Vancouver

1.Selçuk Çetin. İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye’de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi. MOMENT. 01 Temmuz 2025;12(1):187-210. doi:10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210

Right-Wing Political Discourses in Türkiye Against The Climate Crisis: The New Welfare Party

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

İklim Krizine Karşı Türkiye'de Sağ Siyasal Söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster