COP31’s Action Plan Under Scrutiny: Türkiye’s Climate Diplomacy Amidst Global Inequity and Fossil Fuel Dependence
Original framing: “Murat Kurum Outlines COP31 Action Plan” — Bloomberg
Türkiye’s climate policy trajectory is deeply rooted in historical patterns of industrialization and energy dependence, particularly its reliance on coal and natural gas since the 1950s, when the country transitioned from an agrarian economy to one driven by fossil fuels. The establishment of the Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) in 1954 and the subsequent expansion of oil and gas extraction in the 1970s and 1980s set the stage for a national economy that remains heavily tied to fossil fuels today. Additionally, Türkiye’s post-1980s neoliberal economic policies, which prioritized foreign investment and export-led growth, often at the expense of environmental regulations, have created a structural barrier to meaningful climate action. The 2015 Paris Agreement commitments were made in the context of this historical trajectory, and their implementation has been consistently undermined by economic priorities that favor fossil fuel expansion over renewable energy. This historical context reveals that COP31’s action plan is not a departure from past policies but a continuation of them, repackaged for international consumption.
COP31’s action plan, as framed by Murat Kurum, is a classic example of how climate diplomacy can become a stage for performative rhetoric while structural contradictions remain unaddressed.
Türkiye’s dual role as a host of global climate negotiations and a nation expanding fossil fuel infrastructure reveals a systemic tension between geopolitical interests, economic dependencies, and environmental realities. The historical trajectory of Türkiye’s climate policy—marked by neoliberal economic policies, fossil fuel subsidies, and top-down governance—has consistently prioritized short-term economic growth over long-term climate resilience. This pattern is not unique to Türkiye; it reflects a broader global dynamic where fossil fuel-dependent nations use climate summits as opportunities to greenwash their policies while continuing business as usual. What is missing from the current narrative is the recognition that meaningful climate action requires not just diplomatic commitments but also structural transformations, including the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, the integration of Indigenous knowledge, and the establishment of participatory governance mechanisms. The trickster irony here lies in the fact that Türkiye’s climate diplomacy is both a tool for international legitimacy and a smokescreen for domestic inaction, exposing the hypocrisy of global climate governance. To break this cycle, Türkiye—and the global community—must move beyond symbolic gestures and embrace binding commitments, equitable partnerships, and systemic solutions that center justice and sustainability.