At the annual Bonn climate talks in Germany, Turkiye indicated they may bid to host Cop31, according to the IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin website.

The country’s deputy environment minister Mehmet Birpinar told Climate Home Turkiye “would love to” host the talks. He did not name a particular city or venue.

Venue rotation

The venue for the world’s most high-profile two-week climate summit rotates around the United Nations regions. In 2026 it will be the turn of the Western Europe and Others group, which includes Australia and Turkiye.

The UN’s regional groupings. Western Europe and Others are in yellow.

Government negotiators from the group will decide on the host before Cop30 in 2025. They include the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Greece and Israel as well as Western Europe.

Turkiye’s long-time president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently won re-election for another five years – taking him through to 2028.

Climate politics at play

In their successful election campaign last year, Australia’s Labor Party promised to bid to host Cop31 alongside a Pacific island nation.

Fake social media profiles wage “organised” propaganda campaign on Cop28

That proposal has been supported by Pacific nations, Switzerland and by US president Joe Biden last month.

Cop28 will be in the United Arab Emirates this year, Cop29 will be in a yet-to-be-decided Eastern European nation in 2024 and Cop30 will be in the Brazilian city of Belem in 2025.

Turkiye ratified the Paris Agreement in 2021, after long resisting signing it because of its refusal to be considered a developed country and therefore be obliged to give and not receive money for climate projects.

At the same time, the nation formally known as Turkey, set a net zero target for 2053 – the 130th anniversary of the Turkish republic’s founding.

The post Turkiye joins Australia in race to host Cop31 climate talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

The €6m ($6.8m) demonstration project is funded by the European Union and Turkish government. It will grow simple water-based plants, known as algae, in outdoor ponds and indoor tubes, and refine them into fuel and other products.

After touring the site on Boğaziçi University’s campus and handing out algae-based chocolates to reporters, Turkish energy and natural resources minister Mustafa Varank said: “The work is underway for the use of biofuels produced here by Turkish Airlines. We want [them] to carry out [their] first flight using biofuel from here before the end of 2022.”

Experts told Climate Home News biofuel from algae had potential but expressed scepticism it could be produced on a scale to break aviation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Yakında, yosundan üretilen biojet yakıtı kullanılan uçaklarda seyahat edebileceğinizi biliyor muydunuz?

Avrupa’nın ilk ve tek karbon negatif entegre biorafineri projesinde pilot üretimler başladı.

Dünyanın geleceği Türkiye’de! pic.twitter.com/KxalDGj6Rm

— Mustafa Varank (@varank) January 8, 2022

Dan Rutherford is the aviation director of the International Council on Clean Transportation. He said: “Algae jet fuel is kind of like disco, [it] comes back every decade or so but in a worse form. The US government has been picking at this for at least 30 years and has never figured it out.”

In 2011, a plane flew from Houston to Chicago powered by fuel which was 40% algae-based and 60% petroleum. Solazyme, the San Francisco-based company which developed the fuel, filed for bankruptcy in 2017.

Aviation is a notoriously difficult sector to clean up. Electric batteries, the main solution to land-based transport, are heavy and not powerful enough to keep planes in the sky for long periods.

Biofuels made from plants like soy compete with forests and farms for land. As water-based plants, algae don’t pose that problem – but they still have issues.

Named: The oil companies gambling on climate failure

The main challenge is competing on price. The price of traditional jet fuel from petroleum has doubled in the past year to $830 a tonne. It is still cheaper than sustainable alternatives, which a McKinsey analysis in 2020 costed at $1,300-3,800/t, depending on the production method.

Berat Haznedaroglu, director of the Istanbul project, told Climate Home he was aiming to get the price down to $1,000/t for algae-derived fuel. He expects interest in clean fuels to grow as governments, airlines and airports try to meet their climate commitments.

“There will be a mandate coming from [industry body] IATA and the governments,” he said, adding that the increased cost of using clean fuels would be passed on to passengers. “I think it’s going to be €10-15 ($11-17) per ticket”.

Brussels-based thinktank Transport and Environment’s aviation director Andrew Murphy said: “EU investment in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) development in Turkey is a good strategy to bring that aviation market into the scope of its own SAF measures such as ReFuelEU.”

But, he added: “Algae has some concerns due to scalability, so both the EU and Turkey need to fund feedstocks which can be more easily expanded.” For example, he proposed hydrogen derived fuels like e-kerosene.

UK, Switzerland accused of undermining EU green treaty reforms

Haznedaroglu said that hydrogen-derived fuels were “a part of the toolbox” but that most hydrogen is still made from fossil fuels and “the research path for hydrogen is still a little behind algae”.

The Istanbul facility is a university-based demonstration project. It aims to prove the concept, not to become a large-scale supplier itself.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by independent – IPA (@independent_ipa)

Another limiting factor is the weather. A US energy department study found that algae production rates “vary dramatically from summer to winter, even in places like Florida”. Istanbul has an average maximum daily air temperature in January of 9C (48F).

Haznedaroglu said it would be preferable to grow algae in warmer southern Turkey, but there are cold-resistant forms of algae which survived recent snows in Istanbul. Algae grows in places as cold as Iceland.

The Istanbul facility will produce algae for food supplements, animal feed and fertilisers as well as jet fuel.

Rutherford said: “That’s a recurring theme on biofuels generally for aviation. You start off saying ‘jet fuel’ and then you start producing products and a lot of them are pretty fungible. They end up cosmetics, food, replacing petrochemicals.”

Haznedaroglu said that 80 cubic metres of the site’s 110 cubic metres are dedicated to biofuel production in outdoor ponds. The other 30 cubic metres are the indoor tubes.

These are more expensive but less likely to be contaminated by pollution. These are used for products like food supplements where avoiding contamination is particularly important.

The post Turkey opens laboratory to grow algae for jet fuel, in EU-backed clean aviation push appeared first on Climate Home News.

“Honestly, if I were a fish, I wouldn’t stay in this mess. We have been in this trouble for four months,” Duman adds.

Turkey is facing a major outbreak of “sea snot”: a thick, slimy substance also known as marine mucilage that floats on the surface.

Outbreaks have become increasingly common in recent decades, linked to rising ocean temperatures, untreated waste, and stagnant water. Mucilage is made up of overgrown phytoplankton, a microscopic algae. It contains microorganisms that harm marine life by sucking up oxygen in the water.

The authorities launched a 22-point action plan last week to clean up the sea in seven provinces along the coast of Marmara.

A thousand people and over 70 ships have taken part in the cleaning operation at 77 different locations. The workers have vacuumed up tonnes of the stuff from the sea surface since last week. The collected mucilage is sent for disposal.

Climate fund considers India, South Africa to pilot $2bn coal transition scheme

But the sea snot keeps coming, making it impossible to fish, says fisher Turgay Ozcan. “Not only the surface but the seabed has also been fully covered by the mucilage. The mucilage has clogged up our nets so we cannot catch fish. It takes us days to clean our nets from this slimy substance. It has almost brought an end to the fishing industry here.”

Ali Sari, the head of the fisheries cooperative in Izmit province, tells Climate Home: “We noticed smaller amounts of mucilage for many years. However, we have seen these extreme amounts since 2007. It affects the fishing industry adversely. Vessels couldn’t fish this year due to the massive amount of pollution in the sea. I can say that the fishermen made a loss of 80%. We need the government’s help.”

Scientists say the outbreak could have a longer term effect on fish stocks.

“In recent months, many fish died from the lack of oxygen in the Marmara, because the sea snot sucks up the oxygen in the water and suffocates marine life. Fish and other sea animals are not able to live there, “ says Meric Albay, professor at the faculty of aquatic sciences at Istanbul University.

“The large diversity of the sea creatures were really affected by this, even fish were unable to complete their migration. I think that there will be a serious problem especially in fish stocks next year due to their inability to lay eggs and reproduce,” says Albay.

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

Ilayda Zorlu, a 22-year-old law student who lives on the southern coast of the Marmara Sea, tells Climate Home that the entire sea is covered by a white substance.

“The ships seemed to be standing on land. Nobody understood what happened to our sea. We threw a pebble into the sea, it didn’t sink and lay on the surface of the layer of white substance. I took a photo and tagged Greenpeace in order to do something,” Zorlu says.

“We don’t eat fish from the sea any longer. Normally we swim in the sea every day at this time of year but now we don’t. We fear getting skin cancer due to the polluted water and we think the water we swallow while swimming might damage our visceral organs. It’s good to stay away from the sea and sea products for a while, I think,” she adds.

Italian researchers have found large volumes of bacteria in mucilage, including pathogenic strains not found in the surrounding seawater.

The Turkish government plans to designate the entire Marmara Sea as a protected area by the end of the year. Environment and urbanisation minister Murat Kurum said that after hundreds of inspections, a thermal facility, a fertiliser factory, and three shipyards have been closed. Fines totalling 10 million Turkish lira ($1.16 million) have been imposed on 55 facilities and nine ships that discharged pollution and untreated waste into the sea.

The cleanup operation, which will take three to five years, provides hope for the future of the Marmara Sea, marine scientist Albay says: “If you give a chance to the ecosystem by preventing pollution, overfishing, and protecting the area, the sea will recover itself.”

The post An outbreak of ‘sea snot’ is killing Turkey’s fishing industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Council of State ruled on 21 February Hema Elektrik’s environmental impact assessment for the 1,320 megawatt project in Amasra district, Bartin province, was inadequate.

It was responding to a lawsuit filed by more than 2,000 local people – a record number of individual plaintiffs for an environmental court case in Turkey, according to a local news report.

“This decision represents a great victory for us,” said Erdogan Atmis, of the grassroots campaign group Bartin Platform.

Campaigners have fought the project in various guises since 2005, citing concerns about its impact on health, ecology and tourism in the area. Hema’s owner Hattat Holding has responded to previous setbacks by reapplying for permits under a new subsidiary.

“After this rejection, they can try it again,” said Atmis, “but no matter what they do, they won’t be successful, because they will find the people of Bartin and Amasra to be an obstacle.”

Global issues need global coverage

CHN is dedicated to bringing you the best climate reporting from around the world. It’s a huge job and we need your help.

Through our Patreon account you can give as little or as much as you like to support our work. It’s safe and easy to sign up.

Ozlem Katisoz of the Turkish Foundation for Combatting Soil Erosion (Tema), a campaign group not directly involved in this case, said the level of public opposition was striking because Bartin is a coal region.

“Coal is a cultural issue, it is a source of employment,” she said. “Coal is something people are proud of.” But that was outweighed by concerns about the project’s impacts – and rumours it would need imported, as well as domestic, fuel, did not help with public opinion.

Tema, which is primarily concerned with agriculture, is involved in legal challenges and lobbying against a number of other coal projects because of their impacts on farming.

Turkey has the third biggest pipeline of coal power plants in the world, with 37GW of capacity in various stages of planning, according to the latest CoalSwarm data.

The government energy policy backs coal mining and power production as a way to reduce reliance on fuel imports.

Despite that backing, implementation of these plans has slowed to a trickle, in the face of public opposition, legal challenges and investor nerves. Only four generating units are currently under construction, while 62 have been cancelled and 31 shelved since 2010.

“Overall, what this shows is that the the wave of new coal plants that had been anticipated several years ago in Turkey is not materializing, at least so far,” said Ted Nace, director of CoalSwarm.

Coal is one of the biggest sources of climate pollution worldwide and climate activists are urging countries like Turkey to back renewable energy instead.

Tema’s Katisoz said the first priority should be energy efficiency, with “huge potential” for savings in buildings and heavy industry. Better strategic planning is needed, she added, as the projections for electricity demand are uncertain. Then there is scope to scale up solar and wind power.

Republish this article

This article has been amended to clarify the role of coal imports in the debate.

The post Turkish supreme court blocks coal plant, as wave of new projects stalls appeared first on Climate Home News.

In July, Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said he was unlikely to ratify the Paris Agreement, citing Donald Trump’s announcement he was planning to leave the deal. This was interpreted by observers as a demand for access to money in the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF).

Money in the GCF is given by rich countries to help poor ones cope with climate change. Turkey has a “special circumstance” under the UN climate convention in which it does not have to give money, but cannot receive it either.

After Erdoğan’s statement in July, the Fijian presidency of this year’s UN climate talks asked the German government to consult with countries on a way to move forward.

The German proposal, which emerged on Monday and has been seen by Climate Home News, calls on member states and intergovernmental bodies to “work with Turkey to identify opportunities for mobilising resources to complement Turkey’s national efforts, including through multi-country programmes funded from a variety of sources, including the Green Climate Fund”.

That means Turkey should be allowed to apply for money from development banks, even on projects where they are partnered with the GCF. But it adds the share of the cash coming from the climate fund should only go to eligible countries – which excludes Turkey.

Consultations with Jochen Flasbarth, Germany’s secretary of state for the environment, will happen tomorrow morning. One source from the G77 said they were unlikely to be willing to engage with the Germans on this proposal. Developing countries are against any concession to Turkey, fearing any move that could expand access to the climate finance pot.

Climate Home News’ reporting at Cop23 is supported in part by the European Climate Foundation.

Republish this article

The post Germans deny Erdoğan’s desire for climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

The judge cited its impact on the ancient Aeolian city of Kyme, a nearby archaeological site that has yet to be fully excavated. Three other coal power projects in the Aliaga region have been shelved or cancelled in the face of local opposition.

It is part of a wave of litigation campaigners hope will stop Turkey’s dash for coal in its tracks. Straddling Asia and Europe, the country has around 70 coal plants in planning and construction, the world’s third biggest pipeline after China and India.

“It gives us hope,” said campaigner Ozlem Katisoz of the ruling. “It is good to see that the experts have started to see the negative impacts of the coal plants and draft their reports accordingly. It is a sign of change.”

Report: Turkey coal surge an ‘historic error’ say economists

Last Friday’s court decision is not the end of the story for Izdemir power plant. Izdemir Enerji may appeal the court ruling or re-run the environmental impact assessment. The company could not be reached for comment.

But the suspension of an operating plant should give pause to anyone betting on Turkey’s coal expansion, argue green groups.

“This is a message to the major investors and companies,” said Elif Gunduzyeli, Turkey expert with Climate Action Network Europe. “If companies decide to go ahead with their investments, they might later on have problems.”

Turkey gets about a quarter of its electricity from coal and the government is backing an expansion to meet rising energy demand.

The official target touted by Turkey’s investment agency advertises is 30GW of coal generation capacity by 2023. But CoalSwarm tracks 70GW worth of projects that have been announced, permitted or started building.

Energy minister Berat Albayrak emphasised use of domestic resources at an industry event in Istanbul this week. Turkey has significant lignite resources, a low quality type of coal with higher emissions.

From the archives: an anti-coal demonstration in the 1990s (Courtesy of 350.org)

That sits uneasily with international efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. Analysts say more than 80% of the world’s coal is unburnable if global warming is to be held below 2C, the upper limit set by world leaders in the Paris Agreement.

Developments across Turkey also have a long record of opposition from community groups, whether motivated by protecting farmland, cultural heritage or air quality.

Katisoz, who works for TEMA, a Turkish NGO focused on conservation of soil, forests and natural resources, listed some of the key battlegrounds: Amasra, on the Black Sea coast; 21 proposed plants around Iskenderun Bay, in the southeast; lignite mines in mid-Anatolia.

“Coal is a very problematic issue in Turkey,” she said. “It is not the fuel of the future.”

The post Court forces Turkish coal plant to suspend operations appeared first on Climate Home News.

The country’s climate change policies have long been defined by a politics of ‘special circumstances’. Given the botched coup attempt of 15^th July and the consequent state of emergency declared in the country, one might correctly think that climate policies are not the main priority.

But a deeper look into regional geopolitics, recently passed governmental decrees providing legal backdoors to extractivism in the country and a coal rush with hefty incentives to domestic lignite make the case a significant one. In what follows, we look at some of these key issues and their potential impacts on Turkey’s positioning under the new institutional architecture of the climate regime.

Turkey’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) envisages up to 21% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the business as usual (BAU) level by 2030 with an implementation period that starts in 2021. Several studies conclude that this target is nowhere near being fair and adequate considering Turkey’s share in total global emissions (1.24%) and per capita emissions destined to outpace many giant economies such as the EU, USA and China (Figure 1).

Turkey aims to use carbon markets to achieve this target, which may risk exporting some of its emissions to other developing countries. Instead, the country could easily adopt carbon-pricing measures that would reduce its projected emissions by 40% with respect to the baseline scenario that lies at the heart of its INDC.

It should also be noted that Turkey did not pledge any pre-2020 action. This is confusing as the country strives for hosting the climate summit in 2020 and does not show any ambition to undertake rapid climate action or foresee a peak of its emissions by 2030 in line with the best available climate science.

Moreover lack of attention to adaptation in Turkey’s INDC despite its location at the eastern end of highly vulnerable Mediterranean has also been criticised. A recent study already found that the “semi-arid and dry sub-humid continental central Anatolia climate characteristics expanded substantially” in the past 30 years thereby providing a significant precedent for future droughts.

One of the key arguments the Turkish negotiators often use is that the country needs climate finance from developed countries in order to raise its ambition level. The question is whether Turkey is already receiving substantial climate finance in order to realise its fair share or not? Well, yes and no.

In the last decade (particularly after the country made big steps towards energy sector privatisation), Turkey has become an attractive market for multilateral development banks, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) that has invested over €8 billion in the country through over 200 projects. Roughly half of these projects fall under renewable energy and energy efficiency themes.

Though most of these investments are provided to private sector in the form of concessional loans, equity investments or credit lines through intermediary finance institutions, the country’s renewable energy and energy efficiency targets will depend on the continuity of such funding flows.

In 2015, among more than 30 recipient countries, Turkey got the lions’ share (almost 20%) of total EBRD investments and reconfirmed its position as the top destination for the bank’s money. In addition to EBRD, the government of Turkey has been working closely with other multilateral development banks such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation in order to tap other sources of climate financing including the Clean Technology Fund.

Turkey was able to tap US$250m to scale up its mitigation measures through renewable energy efficiency projects. Turkey also accesses other forms of climate-related finance sources. According to the OECD climate-related development finance statistics in 2014, Turkey is among the top destinations for bilateral and multilateral finance. It receives as much financing as developing nations that already feel devastating impacts of climate change such as Indonesia and Bangladesh; and thereabouts as Uzbekistan, Philippines, Brazil, Vietnam, and Morocco (see Figure 2). Turkey also enjoys financing from bilateral or multilateral donors including Germany, Japan, European Union, France and Asian Development Bank (see Figure 3).

Another question that comes to mind is that whether Turkey uses its public incentives in line with the overall aim of the Paris Agreement: rapid transition to a low-carbon economy? According to a study of IISD, quantifiable subsidies to coal in 2013 make up almost 0.1% of Turkey’s nominal GDP. This was much before the recent amendment in energy package through which coal plants can enjoy lucrative incentives and exemptions from environmental regulations.

Furthermore, a governmental decree issued at the height of post-coup attempt (in its famous Article 80) provide exemptions from licences, permissions and appropriations to projects deemed as ‘strategic investments’, a vague concept which can easily be steered in any direction. In addition to these incentives which lock the country into a carbon-intensive future, we should also mention that climate-related development financing that Turkey gets through financial intermediaries can also be used for fossil fuel project financing.

For example, in 2011, a “highly-efficient” natural gas fired thermal power plant was financed through Private Climate Finance Support scheme. Potential public coal funding through financial intermediaries in Turkey between 2007-2014 could be major portion of up to US$8.6 billion. In fact, a recent analysis by Sevil Acar and Erinç Yeldan underlines that by removing the coal subsidisation scheme, Turkey can mitigate its greenhouse gases by as much as 5% without harming its economy. But it seems these findings do not resonate for the current government as they intend to full utilisation of domestic fossil fuel resources (mainly coal with low calorific value) of the country by 2023.

Whether Turkey will embrace the low carbon development opportunities after Paris or refrains from ratifying the Paris Agreement as much as possible thus repeating a historical mistake, we are yet to discover. However, there is one thing that seems certain for the country during and beyond COP22: a fair, balanced and equitable contribution to global efforts will require much progressive political will and a stronger commitment to international law.

Arif Cem Gündoğan is a doctoral candidate in Earth System Science in Middle East Technical University in Turkey. Ethemcan Turhan is a postdoctoral researcher in Istanbul Policy Center (Turkey) and KTH Environmental Humanities Lab in Sweden.

The post Turkey: Notes from a state of (climatic) emergency appeared first on Climate Home News.

This is despite commitments from China’s top leaders to deliver clean energy and low carbon infrastructure for developing countries.

The world’s largest carbon emitter aims to reposition itself as a global green power. In a joint US-China statement at the White House in September 2015, President Xi Jinping agreed to strictly control public investment for overseas projects with high pollution and carbon emissions.

China won praise for promising to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 at the UN climate summit in Paris in 2015 – and trying to wean itself slowly off coal. Chinese manufacturers are now major suppliers of cheap solar and wind parts worldwide.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

However, these efforts are being undercut by Chinese backed coal power plants planned and under construction from Indonesia to Pakistan, Turkey to the Balkans –as well as in Africa and Latin America. These could boost global emissions and lock developing countries into fossil fuel intensive energy systems for decades.

New data collected by chinadialogue and the CEE Bankwatch Network shows that since 2015 many new Chinese coal plant project deals have been announced and are under development.

“The majority of these projects are under loan consideration by China’s policy-driven financing, and supplied by equipment from the country’s largest power generation manufacturers,” said Wawa Wang, public finance policy officer at CEE Bankwatch Network.

Chinese banks and companies are currently involved in at least 79 coal fired generation projects, with a total capacity of over 52 GW, more than the 46 GW of planned coal closures in the US by 2020.

Beijing has encouraged state owned coal companies and energy intensive industries such as concrete, steel and cement, to “go out” as part of the One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR). This aims to open up new opportunities for Chinese companies and to build infrastructure to link China to European markets and beyond.

New outlets 

The overseas push comes as China’s power sector is struggling with severe overcapacity with the slowing economy and slashing of energy intensive industries at home. This has led to the lowest use of existing power generation capacity since 1978. Greenpeace estimates that at any given moment, more than half of China’s coal capacity lies idle.

Yet despite central government attempts to reduce its coal fired power and the toxic smog it produces, there is a surge in new approvals for power plants as a result of pushback from provincial authorities and the perverse incentives created by falling coal prices and government fixed electricity prices.

In addition, Huaneng– one of five state owned energy giants – plans to significantly boost its share of profits from overseas projects by 2020, according to its five year strategy. Its expansion will focus on coal in South and Southeast Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe; hydropower in South Asia, Africa and Europe; and wind and solar in Europe and Latin America. While the corporate strategy highlights overseas risks from war, terrorist attacks and corruption, environmental risks are not mentioned.

All this contributes to concern that China will follow developed countries’ example and simply export its carbon emissions as it moves up the global value chain, threatening any fragile international progress on emissions reduction.

Industry insiders argue that China’s coal advance will bring tangible environmental benefits by providing more efficient technologies than countries could otherwise afford. But the number of new projects in the pipeline will counteract any modest emissions savings made by “supercritical” technology, especially since China’s new, stringent standards for domestic plants do not apply to exports.

While global coal use is thought to have fallen by 4.6% year on year through the first nine months of 2015 – urgent action is still needed to avoid locking in carbon intensive resource use in the future. A third of the new capacity in the global pipeline is coal (1161/3165 GW) according to estimates a forthcoming paper by Phillip Hannam, a scholar at the Princeton Environment Institute – and nearly 90% of this is in rapidly growing Asian economies.

China’s expansion comes as the World Bank and many developed countries have stepped back from funding dirty coal. In 2013 the World Bank strictly limited coal funding and last year OECD countries including Japan and Korea promised to end public financing of coal plants overseas except to the poorest countries.

An earlier study from the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative found that China had invested as much as US$38 billion (253 billion yuan) in coal fired power plants overseas between 2010-2014 and had announced plans for another US$72 billion (480 billion yuan) worth of projects (though not all with firm commitments).

China’s coal footprint is particularly large in Asia. In 2015 coal-fuelled plants accounted for 68% of generating capacity built by China in the rest of Asia, and in future this is set to rise, according to an earlier paper co-authored by Hannam. In contrast, where countries built capacity without Chinese support, coal-fired plants made up only 32% of new capacity.  Worldwide, the majority of China’s support to the power sector in the global south was funnelled into coal, says the paper.

Since 2000, China has overtaken Japan to become the leading exporter of coal equipment – offering “bargain” prices to energy-starved countries and increasing its share of global coal exports from zero to 37% (85GW). It may be much higher, since, where data is missing, exports are largely attributable to China.

China is the largest supplier of equipment to India, which is expected to double its coal capacity by 2031. Chinese firms account for 60% of the equipment ordered in the private sector and are involved in at least 19 projects across the country, the largest being a massive 4,000 MW plant in Gujarat, built by Huaneng and financed by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)

Coal flows along the Silk Roads

Historically, coal power financing has predominantly flowed to India, Indonesia and Vietnam – but now China is diversifying with multimillion dollar projects planned in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Kazakhstan. Further along the OBOR corridors, coal hotspots are emerging in Turkey and the Balkans, where local players are also active. These countries lie outside more stringent European Union environmental regulations and the limitations placed on international finance.

The money and equipment flow into countries where environmental regulations and laws are weak and corruption endemic. In Pakistan alone, China is building at least 7,800 MWof new coal capacity under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor project.

This includes the excavation of the dirtiest kind of lignite coal in the Thar desert – one of the world’s largest untapped coal deposits. The projects have met with protest on the streets and in the courts. In a land mark case, a seven-year old girl has sued the government for violating the rights of her generation to a healthy life by developing coal. In her petition she argues this will dramatically increase Pakistan’s carbon emissions, while ignoring the potential of wind and solar.

The Punjab high court’s objections to the Sahiwal coal plant on environmental grounds were brushed aside in 2015, since it is being fast-tracked under the CPEC. While Pakistan is desperately short of power, the economics are dubious. Sahiwal will require billions of dollars investment in new rail infrastructure to haul imported coal 1,000 km from the port city of Karachi. Petitioners say pollution around the site has already breached national air quality limits.

#China's State Grid constructs 2,000km ultra-high-voltage transmisison lines through #Brazil's #Amazon & Cerrado https://t.co/BPPqMPciCB pic.twitter.com/nAv50OoKHY

— China Dialogue (@chinadialogue) September 23, 2016

Compared to others, Chinese banks are particularly opaque: “Policy driven Chinese financial institutions have yet to adopt information disclosure and accountability policies to protect the rights of affected communities. The situation is further aggravated when there is no institutional oversight of Chinese overseas financing of energy infrastructure projects and the economic, social and environmental problems they cause,” says Wang.

The information behind the map was collected by chinadialogue and Bank Watch from company and bank annual reports and available commercial data. In many cases financial data is unavailable.

A way forward

China has no road map for phasing out overseas coal investment. “Implementation measures from the two countries are needed before the US-China joint statement can be translated into action,” says Yang Fuqiang, senior adviser on climate, energy and environment at The Natural Resources Defense Council, a Beijing based NGO.

He is working with a team to develop green guidelines –“an implementable policy that can be adopted by Chinese financial institutions.” They are preparing their recommendations for the government at the moment.

“Now we are trying to investigate experiences from the past two years to see what we can learn and improve because OBOR is a big global strategy, and without this, investors will face many risks, including environment and climate change risks,” says Yang. “If we don’t find solutions, we will find heavy resistance from local people.”

Chinese companies overseas are already running into environmental problems as they try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and provide jobs for local people. In Bangladesh, police opened fire last year on villagers opposing the illegal seizure of land for the construction of the power plant by Chinese firms on the coast.

Yang’s work at the NRDC builds on a growing movement within China to hold Chinese banks to account on their green lending credentials – and a growing interest in green finance from institutions themselves. China is the world’s largest issuer of green bonds, but unless progress is made fast, Chinese money and equipment will be used to lock in dirty fossil fuel in developing countries and tarnish China’s ambitions to become a green superpower.

This article first appeared on China Dialogue. Emily Franklin, Zhou Jie and Robyn Maby also contributed to the data map.

The post China cuts pollution at home, grows coal abroad appeared first on Climate Home News.

It’s a strategy endorsed by the all-powerful president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, fearful of Moscow’s grip over his country’s energy security.

Ever since Turkey shot down a Russian jet that strayed into its airspace in November 2015, relations have been tense.

In a sign of the deep freeze between the two sides, Turkish gas imports from Russia were 15% down in the first quarter of 2016 compared with 2015, report analysts at Platts.

Preparations for a new fleet of coal-fired power plants are “in the works” as the country aims to add 50 gigawatts of capacity by 2030, says the country’s energy minister Berat Albayrak.

According to government data, natural gas tops primary energy demand at 35%, followed by coal (28,5%), oil (27%), hydro (7%), and other renewables (2,5%)

And while Albayrak says wind, hydropower and solar will play a role in the shift from gas, coal looks set to dominate, with an estimated 80 plants in various stages of planning.

If the government is bullish, analysts are worried.

It’s a billion dollar gamble that is unlikely to pay off says the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, in a damning indictment of Ankara’s plans.

“The lignite-fueled buildout being pursued by the Turkish government would cost at least $1.1 billion and perhaps as much as $2 billion in annual public subsidies and that it would increase electricity prices by 19 percent to 29 percent,” reads its report, published on Tuesday.

Turkey’s energy mix as of 2015 (Pic: IEEFA)

It argues renewables are a better bet for sustained investment.

High levels of sun, vast areas of land available for wind power allied to already significant hydro capacity should make Turkey ripe for clean energy development.

In reality there’s little in the way of green thinking, write the authors: “The paltry 0.3GW of installed solar capacity in Turkey pales in comparison, for example, to Spain’s 7GW and Germany’s 40GW.”

Wind energy targets for 2030 have been cut to 16GW while the government only sees solar capacity doubling in the next 15 years.

“These targets do not reflect the potential of a country with a photovoltaic system performance 50% higher than in Germany,” says a separate analysis by Climate Action Tracker.

It rates Turkey’s planned greenhouse gas cuts of 21% below business as usual by 2030 as “inadequate”, pointing out it’s equal to a “389% increase on 1990 levels, or a 110% increase on 2012 levels”.

Report: Turkey coal push wrecks ‘inadequate’ climate pledge – analysts
Analysis: What UN stats tell us about climate efforts – and Turkey

Meanwhile, IEEFA has other concerns. Turkey says it has investors from Japan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar lined up to help pay for the plants, but globally money for coal is drying up.

The OECD Export Credit Group, World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) are among bodies representing major donors who are tightening criteria for coal finance.

Should Turkey’s banking sector underwrite the planned projects, it would face the risk of defaults and ‘stranded assets’ if global efforts to cut the reliance on fossil fuels gather pace.

And given the slowing pace of the Turkish economy – not helped by the ongoing war in Syria and unrest within its own borders – government energy demand projections may be too high.

IEEFA reckons demand will be 6% below the Turkish government forecasts by 2018 and 15% below those forecasts by 2024.

Climate Home contacted Turkey’s energy ministry for a response before publication.

The post Turkey coal surge an ‘historic error’ say economists appeared first on Climate Home News.

They unfurled a banner reading “grey and dirty” from the top of a lignite-fired plant in Soma, Manisa.

The slogan was a rebuttal to President Recep Erdogan’s recent claim to be greener than Greenpeace.

“There is a clear conflict between climate commitments and the Ministry of Energy’s existing plan to invest in coal,” said campaigner and lawyer Deniz Bayram.

“Turkey is at a crossroads between supporting dangerous and dirty energy systems that pollute the air and contribute to irreversible climate change or joining the energy leaders in adopting renewable energy systems.”

Activists reach the upper platform of the power station chimney (Pic: Greenpeace)

Turkey has the fourth largest coal project pipeline in the world after China, India and Russia, with more than 70 stations planned.

If built, these will double its greenhouse gas emissions and jeopardise international climate goals.

A recent report by Istanbul Policy Center urged the government to scrap coal subsidies and support clean energy instead.

A banner on the power station chimney reads “grey and dirty” (Pic: Greenpeace)

The dash for coal has also met local opposition. Energy firm Kolin was ordered to halt construction of another nearby plant in late 2014, but not before it had cut down 6,000 olive trees to clear the ground.

Villagers were reportedly beaten and handcuffed by private security guards as they tried to block the bulldozers in the middle of the night.

At the time of writing, 38,000 people had signed a Greenpeace petition to halt coal development.

The post In pictures: Greenpeace activists scale Turkish coal plant appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Bert Kaufmann/Flickr)

By Megan Darby

Coal is the single biggest threat to a stable future climate. Cheap and dirty, it is the go-to fuel for countries keen to industrialise.

Cheap, that is, if you don’t count the health costs of toxic air pollution or public spending on railways to transport the stuff.

Major economies are primed for a triple assault on the coal gravy train in the coming week. There is an OECD bid to phase out coal export credits, a broader G20 push against fossil fuel subsidies and a climate risk disclosure drive.

If they see it through, it could tilt the market towards cleaner energy – and a better chance of avoiding catastrophic global warming.

But these things are easier said than done, as vested interests lobby fiercely behind the scenes. What can we expect?

Coal export credits

To start with the most tangible prospect, OECD members are working towards a ban on export credits for the least efficient coal technology.

These are preferential loans or guarantees governments offer their domestic industries to encourage trade.

OECD countries doled out US$34 billion worth of such support between 2007 and 2014, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International and WWF found in a recent study.

Japan, which accounted for $20 billion of that figure, previously defended the practice. In a significant shift last month, the country got behind a phase out (see document below).

In a compromise struck with the US, it does not propose a complete ban, as some environmentalists would like.

But it wants to rule out support for the low and middling efficiency plants that make up 80% of the pipeline.

More efficient ultra-supercritical plant would be eligible, provided it fits with national climate policy.

“They [Japan] have come round to the idea because of political pressure for one, and because they think their industry is competitive selling ultra-supercritical technology,” says Steve Herz of the Sierra Club.

“This is about as strong a deal as is achievable, given the current political context.”

Emissions intensity

Ultra-supercritical coal plant     <750g CO2/kWh

Supercritical                                   750-850g CO2/kWh

Subcritical                                       >850g Co2/kWh

Modern gas-fired plant                ~360g CO2/kWh

There are holdouts. Australia and South Korea have both submitted weaker proposals.

South Korea is a major exporter of coal technology, while Australia’s mining sector supplies the raw materials.

Australia’s position is “deeply, deeply cynical,” says Herz, who has followed the discussions closely.

“They don’t even manufacture the technology that is at issue. What their position comes down to is they want other countries to continue to subsidise the export of inefficient coal technology so that they can export more coal.”

It is at odds with prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s claims that Australian coal can reduce energy poverty without harming the climate.

Report: Australia PM Turnbull stands by coal amid moratorium calls

Despite taking climate change more seriously than predecessor Tony Abbott, who he ousted in a party rebellion, Turnbull has stood by the mining sector.

That has not gone unnoticed by Australian environmentalists.

“The Turnbull Government wants to keep coal-fired power stations unfairly propped up to please its big mining donors at the expense of the liveability of the planet and the health of people in developing nations,” says Green senator Larissa Waters.

“Australia should be leading the transition to the job-rich clean energy future, not blocking the global shift from fossil fuels.”

Herz is optimistic there will be progress on this at an OECD meeting next week, however. “We think pressure is being applied in the right places,” he says.

Fossil fuel subsidies

This is a beacon of progress in the sluggish wider fossil fuel subsidy reform agenda.

Every year since 2009, G20 countries have reiterated a promise to eliminate “inefficient” incentives for polluting sectors.

A report published by the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International on Thursday shows that is not translating into action.

G20 countries back coal, oil and gas production to the tune of US$452 billion a year, researchers found. By way of comparison, the International Energy Agency estimates global renewable subsidies at $121 billion.

On 15-16 November, leaders of the G20 – a group that overlaps with the OECD, counting big emerging economies like China and Brazil as well as the US and Europe – meet in Antalya, Turkey.

G20 leaders meet in Antalya, Turkey on Sunday (Pixabay)

Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group, which represents 23 EU-based companies including Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Jaguar Land Rover, is urging action.

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, says in a statement: “Fossil fuel subsidies, which we know both hinder the development of low carbon solutions and disproportionately benefit the well-off in society, need to be put in the past.”

Campaigners are also reminding delegates of their promise. Demonstrations are planned on Saturday in Washington DC, Berlin, Istanbul, Tokyo and Seoul, under the banner #stopfundingfossils.

“It is a no brainer – this is really low hanging fruit for the G20,” says Alex Doukas from Oil Change International, co-author of the subsidy report.

“It is a way to free up budget space and spend money on other priorities rather than fuelling the climate crisis.”

Report: Turkey coal push wrecks ‘inadequate’ climate pledge – analysts

The host nation is giving tax breaks to a fleet of coal plants that could nearly double its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, however. It has shown little willingness to discuss reform.

As the researchers acknowledge, a lack of clear information, concerns about energy security and industry lobbying lead to inertia.

“Giving these handouts to companies entrenches strong corporate interests, which then exert a lot of influence,” says Doukas.

There are signs next year’s G20 president, China, could deliver what campaigners really want to see: a timetable for scrapping subsidies.

In a September agreement with the US on economic relations, it spoke of a phase out “by a date certain”.

Climate risk disclosure

Last but not least is an initiative to smooth the path to a low carbon economy by bringing investors on board.

The Financial Stability Board this week submitted a proposal to the G20 for a task force to uncover the climate-related risks facing markets.

That could include getting businesses to disclose their carbon footprints, for example.

Mark Carney, FSB chair and Bank of England governor, has warned climate change – and the response to it – threaten financial stability.

The sector is too bound up in short term thinking to tackle the issue, he said, calling for greater transparency.

A Bank of England report outlined three sources of risk: physical damage wreaked by extreme weather, lawsuits against polluters for climate damage and devaluing of carbon-intensive assets as emissions are constrained.

Research from Cambridge University underlines the scale of potential shocks to the system if sentiment suddenly shifts on climate change.

Certain types of portfolios could lose up to 45% of their value, it finds.

“Investors can ‘climate proof’ their investments to a significant extent by understanding how climate change sentiment could filter through to returns,” says Scott Kelly, one of the authors of the report.

“However, almost half the risk is “unhedgeable” in the sense that it cannot be addressed by individual investors. System-wide action is necessary to deal with this in the long-term interests of savers.”

An FSB task force would build on diverse voluntary or regulatory initiatives to highlight exposure to climate risk.

In a recent intervention, the New York attorney general forced coal giant Peabody Energy to tell shareholders how emissions curbs could hit profits.

Report: Exxon Mobil faces legal inquiry on climate misinformation

Still, Richard Denniss, chief economist at The Australia Institute, wants to see more aggressive measures.

“Information helps, but we need to go much further than disclosure; we need to go to investigation,” he says.

Exxon Mobil is being probed over revelations it internally accepted the scientific consensus on climate change decades ago, yet publicly muddied the waters.

Australia, meanwhile, claimed not to be subsidising fossil fuels after the 2009 G20 statement. That was subsequently shown to be untrue – the latest study gives a figure of $5 billion a year.

“If they want to talk about disclosure and transparency, that test should also be applied to government support for fossil fuels,” says author Doukas.

“They are on the hook at the same time as a lot of these companies are seriously distressed. Governments are investing heavily in exploring for more fossil fuels that we can’t burn. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.”

The post Are major economies putting the squeeze on coal? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ankara’s weak climate plan is undermined by coal drive, say analysts (Flickr/David Stanley)

By Megan Darby

Turkey’s dash for coal puts it on course to breach a climate target analysts say is already inadequate.

The country has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions up to 21% from business as usual by 2030. Yet it is reportedly planning to build 80 coal-fired power stations.

Something has got to give, Climate Action Tracker (CAT) concludes in an assessment published on Thursday.

“Turkey will not be immune to the human, economic and environmental impacts of climate change and would appear to have a strong national interest in limiting warming below 2C,” said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, one of four research bodies involved in the report.

“Plans to invest in coal over renewables contradict this.”

Paris tracker: Who has pledged what for 2015 UN climate pact?

Ankara was among 146 governments to submit a climate plan by the UN’s 1 October deadline, ahead of a global pact to be finalised in Paris this December.

Its target is equivalent to nearly quadrupling emissions from 1990 levels, not counting forestry and land use. If all governments put in similarly weak efforts, CAT said warming would likely exceed 3-4C this century – a level catastrophic for the planet.

“To make a fair contribution to holding warming below 2C, Turkey would need to double – or even triple – its post-2020 target,” said Kornelis Blok of Ecofys.

Nor does it yet have credible policies to back up the target. Existing measures get Turkey 28% of the way and clean energy plans take it to 73%.

The main element is hydro power, with solar and wind energy deployment set to slow down next decade.

Niklas Hoehne of NewClimate Institute said: “Turkey’s renewable energy targets do not reflect the potential of a country with a photovoltaic system performance 50% higher than in Germany and a technical wind power potential of 275 GW.”

What is more, bullish coal plans appear to exceed the business-as-usual assumptions, meaning they would negate clean power gains.

Analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance last year calculated Turkey could meet its growing energy demand cleanly at a comparable cost.

Analysis: What UN stats tell us about climate efforts – and Turkey

Turkey occupies a unique position in UN climate talks, not aligning with any negotiating bloc.

The upper middle income economy is classed as a developed country, yet with a “special circumstance” letting it off the hook for obligations. That bizarre status may have come about by clerical error, according to a ClimateWire special report.

Given its isolation, Turkey often flies below the radar, despite its growing responsibility for emissions. As the host of next month’s G20 summit, it could come under more scrutiny.

But it is also in line for significant impacts from climate change, CAT noted, particularly water scarcity.

And if sea levels rose one metre, “more than possible” under 3-4C warming, it would affect 3 million people and put US$ 12 billion at risk.

Hare added: “Scientific papers point to climate change playing a part in the region’s crippling 2007-2010 drought… exacerbating the underlying social and political problems that have caused the current conflict in the region and the resulting Syrian refugee crisis.”

The post Turkey coal push wrecks ‘inadequate’ climate pledge – analysts appeared first on Climate Home News.

Officials audit ballot boxes in Afghanistan’s 2014 election (Flickr/ UNAMA)

By Alex Pashley

The election cycle never ends.

Ahead of a decisive climate conference in seven weeks’ time, these are the countries set to elect governments and legislatures. Unpicking long-crafted stances might be dangerous, but not impossible.

What bearing could the shuffling of top national posts have  on UN climate talks?

1. Canada – 19 October

Fort McMurray, Alberta. Canada is a major emitter with tar sands making up a chunk (Flickr/ Kris Krug)

Liberal party challenger Justin Trudeau is neck and neck with incumbent prime minister Steven Harper in the polls. Environmentalists are watching the race eagerly, hoping the result might herald some pro-climate policies, including to slash emissions from the country’s dirty tar sands.

Two-term Conservative leader Harper has blocked green reforms, says Ontario premier Kathleen Wynee, with her province leading the charge to defy Ottawa.

Trudeau has promised to link up all provinces and territories with carbon taxes, while his party platform includes support for a fossil fuel subsidy phase-out and is open to joining a North American clean energy agreement with Mexico and the US.

2. Poland – 25 October

Duda won an election in May, heralding a return to power for Poland’s right (tk) (Pic: Prawo i Sprawiedliwość/Flickr)

Favourites the Law and Justice (PiS) party have vowed to shore up Poland’s ageing coal industry and defy EU climate policies. President Andrzej Duda, who was elected in May, campaigned on a similar platform to protect those who haven’t enjoyed the spoils of years of strong growth.

Government figures have hit back, saying Poland would end up marginalised in Europe. Some analysts dismiss PiS pro-coal rhetoric as empty bluster, with key EU decisions long decided. Duda has already tracked back since winning power, passing clean air regulations for local authorities.

But how to salvage the country’s tottering mining companies is “the hot potato no one wants to touch,” says Julia Michalak at think tank Demos Europa.

3. Argentina – 25 October

Argentine president Christina Kirchner in 2014 (Flickr/ Argentine Culture Ministry)

The end of the kirchnerismo project is nigh as President Cristina Kirchner’s protégé Daniel Scioli takes on Mauricio Macri to govern South America’s third-largest economy.

Argentina has pledged to cut emissions at least 15% by 2030, though NGOs said the target’s reliance on existing policies was deceiving.

Scioli has labelled climate change the South American country’s “main enemy”, but candidates are said to have touched little on the subject on the campaign trail.

Argentina is a G20 member and promised to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the medium term. A November conference may demand more strenuous actions. A second round is slated for 22 November, should no clear winner emerge.

4. Turkey – 1 November 

Yenikoy Open Pit Coal Mine, Milas (credit: wikimedia commons)

Turkey’s general election will go ahead in a fraught climate, after a deadly bomb attack killed 128 people in capital Ankara last Saturday.

Fiercely ambivalent on climate policy, president Recep Erdogan hopes to broaden support for his AK party after an inconclusive result in June. Don’t expect a change of tack in Paris.

The country is backing fossil fuel development, with a series of coal-fired power plants in the pipeline. Emissions have rocketed 110% between 1990 and 2013, and its pledge to the UN foresees that trend accelerating.

It hosting of the next G20  meeting in November will put the government under a lens, but isn’t expected to reverse dirty policy.

5. Myanmar – 8 November

Mystic temples of Bagan, just before sunrise. Bagan, Myanmar (Flickr/ KX Studio)

Could Myanmar’s first relatively free and fair election in 50 years be a new spring for the country’s international engagement? Analysts say Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy could well win a majority, shaking up the Asian country’s politics after military rule ended in 2011.

Myanmar is a blank slate for energy, with the government locked in debate over which direction to take. There is hope for solar, but an expansion of coal-fired power plants is assured to widen electricity access to the two out of three Burmese that lack it. The country lags as one of the worst for deforestation, according to the UN. What would effect would an NLD victory have on a cleaner energy future?

6. Marshall Islands – 16 November 

Laura beach in the Marshall Islands (Pic: Stefan Lins/Flickr)

The low-lying country of 24 atolls in the Pacific ocean has an outsized voice in UN talks given its vulnerability to sea-level rise and storms.

Foreign minister Tony de Brum has used that as his bully pulpit to campaign for more robust climate action. The island state came up with a bullish plan to cut emissions and boost renewables in July.

The senator has labelled climate change migration “genocide” and lambasted the UN’s shipping body chief over slow progress to curb maritime emissions. But like any politician, he must win re-election to the Nitijela parliament in capital Majuro. Polling data is not readily available.

Holding major emitters to account has bipartisan support in the Marshall Islands and the new government wont take office until next year after the Paris summit. But small islands states would lose a giant if de Brum did not win back his seat.

The post 6 elections to watch before Paris climate summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

Turkey’s emissions have more than doubled since 1990
(Pic: Flickr/Quinn Dombrowski)

By Megan Darby

Ahead of climate talks in Lima next month, the UN has pulled together the latest greenhouse gas emissions figures for “Annex 1” countries.

These are the 43 countries that were put on the rich list back in 1992 and required (with the exception of Turkey) to set emissions targets.

The figures show they succeeded in cutting emissions 10.6% from 1990 to 2012 and are flatlining this decade.

And there is a wide range between countries, from -58% for Latvia and Romania to +133% for Turkey.

Other countries reporting significant CO2 rises include Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

These numbers do not give us a global picture of emissions; big emerging economies like China, Brazil and India are not on the list.

But they can show what, if anything, efforts to tackle climate change have achieved.

Greenhouse gas emissions from rich countries are expected to climb slightly this decade
(Source: UNFCCC)

The good news is that policies promoting energy efficiency, renewables and fuel switching (coal to gas) have made a difference.

Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the UK each cut emissions more than 20% over the period while expanding their economies more than 38%.

While generally non-judgmental, the UN report says “considerable credit is due” to effective policies in these countries.

Across the Annex 1 countries, emissions intensity – that is, emissions for each unit of economic growth – fell by more than a third.

This shows you do not have to ramp up use of polluting fossil fuels to get rich – a crucial point for developing countries.

Having said that, some of the biggest emissions cuts came from economic downturns: the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s and the 2008 financial crisis.

And the bad news is, under existing policies, emissions are set to rise slightly this decade. Many countries are still coasting on these windfalls, so there is little incentive to keep investing in the low carbon transition.

That is why one of the big items on the agenda in Lima will be boosting ambition pre-2020.

Percentage change in emissions (not counting forestry and land use) between 1990 and 2012 by country
(Source: UNFCCC)

A breakdown of the change in emissions levels by country shows up Turkey as an outlier.

Its emissions have more than doubled – although it should be said emissions per head are fairly low for this group, at 5 tonnes a year.

Turkey occupies a unique place in the UN climate process: it is classed as an Annex 1 country, but in 2001 was exempted from the requirement to target emissions cuts.

Its government pleaded “special circumstances” at the time – essentially, the economy wasn’t ready.

Now China has committed to an emissions peak, that argument will no longer wash.

Like other emerging economies, Turkey will be expected to propose a national contribution to global climate efforts early next year.

This might include a target to cut emissions compared to “business as usual” or a peak emissions year.

At present, the Turkish government is pursuing a “dash for coal” that is bound to increase emissions.

A report commissioned by WWF from Bloomberg New Energy Finance proposed a “comparable cost” energy strategy based on renewables.

While there may be gaps in domestic policy, Turkey’s prime minister is making climate-friendly noises on the world stage.

Ahmet Davutoglu at this month’s G20 summit in Brisbane described climate change as “the biggest challenge to all of humanity today”.

He promised it will play a big part in discussions at the next G20 meeting, which he hosts in Antalya.

Countries that have decoupled their emissions from economic growth need to pass on those lessons, so emerging economies like Turkey can match rhetoric with action.

The post What UN stats tell us about climate efforts – and Turkey appeared first on Climate Home News.

Hydropower is a proven technology that can provide sustainable low carbon electricity, but this comes at a cost to the physical and social environment, as a new documentary illustrates.

By Todd Southgate

You get kind of jaded being an environmental journalist and traveling around the world after decades. Especially since everywhere you go something horrible is happening.

Traveling to Turkey for the Damocracy documentary was the same. It took a solid three days of traveling to get from my home in Brazil to Hasankeyf, a remote ancient town on the Tigris River in south east Turkey. Just a stone’s throw from the borders of Iraq and Syria.

This is Mesopotamia: the cradle of civilization.

Upon seeing the cliff city ruins and archaeological sites for the first time, my sails immediately filled, my senses ignited and a bionic bounce was wired into my step. There is no way one cannot marvel at just how spectacular the town is, set amongst ancient monuments which predate everything you could possibly imagine.

Heck, there were people living in the cave dwellings here, which are speckled everywhere alongside the mountains, before the written word and math were even considered. And you feel it! 12,000 years of history all around you.

Campaigners say hundreds of cultural and archaeological sites could disappear if Turkey continues to build huge dams in Mesopotamia

Filming in and around Hasankeyf you’re constantly reminded that several civilizations passed through here over the ages: the Romans, the Byzantines, it was once conquered by the mongrels, and of course fell into the hands of the Ottomans.

Meeting the people here was also an unexpectedly pleasant surprise. As a cameraman, and journalist, you’re not often given rock star-like treatment by those who invite you, or those you plan to film. I’ve actually been chased from towns in the Amazon by truckloads of armed men – I digress. Given the town’s incredible history there’s an interesting blend of Turkish, Arab and Kurdish cultures here.

We would break “simit” (round bread) together and eat it with “otlu peynir” (a type of goat cheese with herbs) in the mornings over tea and talk about Hansakeyf and its incredible multi-millennial history. Through translated interviews, people told me how until quite recently many of the cave dwellings created 12,000 years ago still housed people, until they were forced into government made homes.

They were proud that their connections to Hasankeyf spanned centuries. A young University student named Fatma mentioned how her family once lived in the castle above. “This land is the first steps of civilization and modern life, where the religions began, where the life began. This land is like a hidden paradise. When you look from far you see only mountains but when you look close you see the gate of the nature, the gate of the history, this is a different atmosphere” Fatma proudly said.

And to think, the government wants to destroy all this.

The Turkish government is building the Ilisu dam on the Tigris River. The dam is the biggest and most controversial of over 1,500 hydroelectric projects the Turkish government plans to build by 2023.  It would inundate an area over 310 sq. kms and would flood the ancient town of Hasankeyf and the Tigris valley.

Over 300 ancient sites would be flooded,many endemic and endangered species threatened and over 25,000 people will be forced to relocate.

Around 1.4 million people were forced to leave their homes when the Three Gorges dam was built in China. It created a reservoir 410 miles long, submerging 116 towns and hundreds of ancient historical sites

Maybe that’s why everyone was so happy to see me. They knew I was there to film their historically, culturally and ecologically unique home. They needed to vent, to tell their stories, with hopes of having these images aid in raising some important awareness to what’s at stake.  I was here on behalf of the Doga Dernegi (BirdLife in Turekey) to do just that.

It’s impossible to convey all that I felt the first time I saw Hasankeyf: that moment of elation and awe.  But the scenes captured are breathe-taking.

More importantly, the facts speak for themselves and through interviewing archaeologists, advocates, scientists and community members you learn quickly that there is really no energy debate here, there are alternatives, but what we’re dealing with is special interests and government malfeasance steam-rolling cultures, destroying lives and erasing history.

I won’t go into too much detail about the planned Ilisu dam, or why it’s such a bad idea, and why it’s not “green energy” as most dam proponents now boast, that will come out in the documentary.

But while interviewing a Professor of archaeological studies at the University of Istanbul, she said something on camera that I truly believe put everything into perspective.  “We’re sacrificing 12,000 years of history, for maybe 50 years of energy”.

It’s a familiar story; I’ve spent the better part of four years documenting the fight to stop the Belo Monte dam in the Brazilian Amazon, too. Actually, it was during work in the Amazon when I met people from the BirdLife Turkey who talked about Ilisu dam.

Belo Monte is this biggest and most controversial of the 60 dams that the Brazilian governments wishes to hammer into the Amazon over the coming decades. Part of a larger government plan called PAC.

So while in Turkey, I couldn’t help but notice the parallels between these government’s intentions and tactics on both sides of the world, and what is at stake for local communities, culture and ecology are striking.

My stay in Hasankeyf ended far too quickly, but it was time to go home. And although it would be another 50 hours to get there, my mind wasn’t on how horrible an experience traveling is, it was still with the people of Hasankeyf and what they stand to lose.

VIDEO: Watch the trailer for Damocracy

The post Turkey’s hydropower dreams in danger of drowning rich history appeared first on Climate Home News.

Introduction of cash crops and animal species is a strong tool to improve economic conditions in any locality.

However, income generation for local people via agricultural activities in marginal lands is critical under fragile environmental conditions due to the excess input requirement and the costs associated with establishing new crops.

In a sloping land, agricultural practices can easily induce erosion, which will decrease soil quality, irrigation in arid lands may cause secondary salinity build-up and overgrazing in pasture land may accelerate loss of biodiversity.

Farmers on the marginal lands of Turkey have to take into consideration the fragile environment (© TEMA)

Karapınar, located in the Konya Closed Basin in Central Anatolia, is a site covering all those conditions at the same time.

That’s why it has been a lab for studies on the conservation of marginal lands and sustainable local development since 1960s.

The introduction of crops and animals species can give an economic boost to Turkey (© TEMA)

The process has been guarded for years by the erosion monitoring station built in Karapınar that is still in operation. Hence various data are available, creating a sound base for further implementation and research.

CROP-MAL, Creation of Rational Opportunities for Conservation of Marginal Arid Lands, funded by Japanese MITSUI, has been implemented in Karapınar since 2009 as a follow-up project to DESIRE Project completed in 2008 which documented all relevant data on natural resources, social structure and the potential production capacity of the site.

Within the scope of CROP-MAL the project area has been expanded to cover the whole microbasin. This includes various land types typical to the site.

The context of the project has also been upgraded to cover capacity building and land management action planning like the production of a land management model.

The project aims to conserve the water and soil resources of the site, to introduce the tools for the sustainable use of those resources and, to combat and mitigate desertification with a multi-disciplinary approach in an area covering approximately 4100 km2 in Central Anatolia (Karapinar Microbasin covering Karapinar and the arid and semiarid zones of Eregli and Karaman).

The CROP-MAL project sets out demonstration areas for combating desertification (© TEMA)

TEMA is cooperating with Cukurova University, Department of Soil in this project to transfer the know-how generated in universities to the field and vice versa.

The project is basically structured on four main components:

Demonstration fields for the introduction of good agricultural practices enabling direct contact with the locals.

Farmer training and education to raise awareness.

The development of traditional crafts and local products for economic diversification to decrease the human pressure on soil.

Data collection, monitoring and analysis of water, soil, vegetation and climate sequestration and the production of a sustainable land management model.

As stated above, the project adopts an integrated perspective to the problem of desertification and land degradation in arid lands with a scientific sensitivity while taking into account the current political and social conditions.

The project also aims to increase community engagement and education (© TEMA)

Throughout the project, various scientific outputs have been produced such as desertification sensitivity maps, crop pattern maps, anthrospace tables indicating the dependency of the crops and the zones and analyses of change in water resources.

All of this has formed the basis for the sustainable land use model specifically designed for the CROP-MAL site.

The next step is aimed at producing a ‘community’ layer to complete the social and political dimension of the picture since experience has shown us what is critical to success is the level of involvement of locals and the commitment of local agents. Without this, change is not possible.

The final outcome of the project is expected by July 2012 with the development of the sustainable land management plan of Karapinar. The plan will help the decision makers to adopt the most effective strategy to achieve sustainable development in the site as a guiding reference.

Duygu Kutluay is the International Relations Officer at the TEMA Foundation.

More from Desertification Week:

• How community engagement has helped drive anti-desertification projects in Iran.
• All your questions answered about Desertification.
• UNFCC Chief Luc Gnacadja calls for action on desertification at Rio+20.

The post Understanding desertification in Turkey appeared first on Climate Home News.