As the world rapidly approaches its 2030 and 2050 climate targets, global data clearly shows that the planet is sounding the alarm. Exceeding the critical 1.5-degree threshold, the stagnation of efforts toward targets in many countries, and even the European Union’s failure to meet its goals reveal that climate policies remain on paper. According to Prof. Dr. Nuri Azbar, a faculty member at Ege University’s Department of Bioengineering, the Earth has failed to achieve a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions; on the contrary, the warming trend continues rapidly. Emphasizing that it is unrealistic to achieve “carbon neutrality” targets within the specified timeframe, Azbar pointed out that we are facing a failing climate report card due to global actors not taking the necessary responsibility.

Professor Nuri Azbar, a faculty member at Ege University’s Department of Biomedical Engineering, emphasized that the biggest obstacle to global progress in sustainability is not only political indecision but also an entrenched perception problem. Noting that a significant portion of industrialists do not consider the environment as a natural component of production costs, Azbar stated that 2026 stands out as a critical threshold for industrialists and that there are many critical steps that need to be taken in this regard.

  • Is the world truly making progress toward the 2030 and 2050 climate goals?

As you know, there are targets set for 2030 and 2050. In the context of the Green Deal, the most fundamental criteria are combating the climate crisis and keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees. Looking at the global average right now, the 1.5-degree level has been exceeded. Türkiye is at around 1.8 degrees. The European Union is also unable to meet the 1.5-degree target, so negotiations are underway for a 2-degree level. The warming trend on Earth continues unabated. Returning to the 2030 target, the Green Deal sets a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 55 percent compared to 1990 levels. After that, the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 comes into play. The concept of neutrality is sometimes referred to as net zero. Reducing carbon emissions to zero is not a realistic goal. The European Union is making an effort to regulate carbon emissions under the name of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Even if the European Union is 100% successful as a continent, it knows that its impact on a global scale will not exceed 7%. Because China alone emits 15 billion tons of the 41 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. India, the US, Japan, and Germany follow behind. The negative impact of major global players continues today, and therefore no meaningful downward trend is emerging. For this reason, the European Union has decided to introduce taxation under the border carbon adjustment mechanism with a “take control” approach. Türkiye has a high potential to be affected by the CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) due to its high-level trade volume with Germany and Europe. The European Union is applying both punitive and rewarding tools to steer its own producers towards environmentally friendly production within its borders. If carbon emissions are reduced within European borders for fair production, the same fairness is sought to be applied to products entering from outside Europe that are not subject to taxation. This approach is both environmental and economic.

Within this framework, we need to reduce carbon emissions by 55 percent by 2030. There are four years left until 2030, but no tangible action has been taken. On the contrary, average temperatures are trending upward. The 2050 target is net-zero. However, completely eliminating carbon emissions is seen as unrealistic. Areas defined as sinks, forests, oceans, wetlands, are the only areas that absorb carbon, and protecting these areas and increasing their number is critically important. Global climate impact and global warming trigger acidification in the oceans, which in turn causes degradation in carbon sinks. On the forest side, an area the size of Cyprus is cut down from the Amazon every day and turned into teak furniture. This picture is quite telling because while the European Union is the advocate for carbon emissions and the environment, the continent that prefers teak the most is again Europe.

“We failed with a total annual global carbon emission of 41 billion tons”
  • How do you assess 2025 in the context of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Green Deal?

To summarize the picture emerging from the COP meetings, we are faced with a result of “COP scored 30 goals, the environment scored 0.” To date, numerous summits attended by heads of state have been held, and many decisions have been made on paper. However, there has been no significant success in implementing these decisions. The most fundamental example of this is the decision by the United States, a major carbon emitter, to withdraw from the system during the Trump era. During this period, Trump stated, “I don’t believe in such a thing as the climate crisis. Issues like global warming and the climate crisis are nonsense invented by China to destroy the American economy.” In contrast, Scandinavian countries, Finland, and Denmark, in particular, are making significant progress internally. There are also efforts to a certain extent across Europe. Looking at Türkiye, only 1% of the total annual global carbon emissions of 41 billion tons belong to Türkiye. This does not mean that Türkiye has no responsibility, of course. However, countries that emit enormous amounts of carbon continue to have a major negative impact even on countries with relatively low emission shares. Considering this overall picture, it is fair to say that, as a planet, we are facing a failing grade in terms of climate.

“2026 stands out as a critical threshold”
  • So, what kind of year will 2026 be for industrialists? What will be the main agenda for 2026?

2026 is a very critical year. This is because the CBAM has been undergoing an observation period for the last three years. Under the banner of a “fair transition,” the Green Deal stated that taxation would not be applied overnight, but that a three-year period would be allowed for practical implementation. During this period, the European Union conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations and administered small tests. The European Union requested four declarations per year, every three months, from sectors with high carbon emissions. At this point, my personal observation is that, apart from those with high exports, a significant portion did not follow this process. It will officially start in January 2026, and carbon taxes will begin to be billed on May 31, 2026. The European Union will not collect this tax directly from the industrial producer; instead, collection will be carried out through the European importer who submits the declarations to the European Union. The European company will then say to its partner, “I am paying this much tax on your behalf, now you will pay me back.” Therefore, industrialists, who are already under competitive pressure, will face the risk of being crushed under these taxes. However, if industrialists read this process correctly and take the right precautions, there is a chance to turn this crisis-like period into an opportunity. If Turkish industrialists manage to reduce their carbon emissions below those produced by Europeans, it may even be possible to impose reverse taxation, which would mean opening up a new source of revenue. In this context, Europe has proposed a framework stating, “I am implementing an emissions trading system. If you also establish your national emissions trading system and pay taxes here, bringing your costs to a level equivalent to mine, I will not collect taxes from you through fair transition, as I will consider them already paid.” For this reason, climate legislation was passed in Türkiye this year, and if the national emissions trading system is implemented by 2026, certain taxation measures will be introduced in Türkiye, which could act as a catalyst for industrialists. At this point, if industrialists reduce their carbon emissions to equivalent levels or even below and bring them to competitive levels with Europe, there is a way out; otherwise, we may be forced to pay taxes to Europe for many years with the “I missed my chance, you can have it” mentality. For this reason, 2026 stands out as a critical threshold.

“The environment is still seen as a wasted investment”
  • 2026 will be a period when applications and penalty systems come into effect. Despite this, there is a serious lack of awareness among industrialists globally. What is the main reason for this lack?

Turkish industry has no chance of abandoning Europe. Türkiye has a 44 percent import-export relationship with Europe. Europe is a very strong partner for us; we both buy and sell goods. Therefore, the approach of “I’ll turn my back, be capricious, and go to another market” is not realistic, and there is an obligation to comply with their rules. Nevertheless, there are ways to turn this crisis into an opportunity. The relevant state institutions have been raising their voices on this issue for years, issuing regulations, publishing laws, and organizing training. The Ministry of Trade has been acting as the coordinating ministry since the Green Deal was established. The Ministry of Environment has conducted training on carbon footprint and all related compliance processes, and as a university, we have tried to warn, educate, and raise awareness among industrialists in many places. However, my personal experience is that industrialists tend to postpone such regulations. It is also disturbing that industrialists only look at every issue from an economic perspective and do not consider environmental issues unless there is any income or benefit, because the environment is still seen as a “wasted investment” for them, and environmental investments remain in the background unless there is any obligation or regulatory pressure.

This perception is not unique to Turkish industrialists; my personal opinion is that a similar approach exists on a global scale. Even if you go to Europe today, European industrialists would not make these transformations without very serious and demanding regulations; no one is motivated by “let’s be environmentally friendly, let’s save the world.” Environmental investments are often seen as “wasted investments,” especially when it comes to reducing operating costs. The real problem starts here: manufacturers who view inputs such as energy, water, chemicals, and raw materials as components of production costs ignore the environmental waste they generate and adopt the approach of “this cost is not mine, let the state deal with it.” There is a serious deviation here. Environmental costs need to be calculated as a component of production and passed on to the consumer. In doing so, the government must prevent double standards. Laws in our country are not as strong as in Europe because most of them are imported and translated legislation. On paper, they all exist, but I believe there are problems in their implementation.

  • At the current stage of global sustainability reporting, there are numerous standards in place. While the diversification and increased comprehensiveness of these standards are certainly important, from an industrialist’s perspective, does this situation create confusion rather than convenience?

Absolutely, there are too many standards, they involve very detailed processes, and they require special, professional effort. Manufacturers are already dealing with dozens, even hundreds of regulations, penalties, and sanctions in their own production activities, and when these issues are added on top, they can become overwhelmed. Of course, our industrialists who show particular sensitivity to this issue are excluded, but looking at the general majority, it is seen that approaches that are “just for show” in terms of sustainability are prominent. There can be a rapid shift towards so-called greenwashing, and practices that are only used on websites or in marketing communications, lacking sincerity in the real kitchen, come to the fore.