How environmentalist is the opposition?

How environmentalist is the opposition?

The voters are now pursuing their own problems among the political parties’ election pledges. It is important that the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) creates enthusiasm in crowds with the topics of democracy, freedom, rights and law.  

It is noteworthy that the Republican People’s Party (CHP), instead of an emotionless development stance, has embraced the poor, the retirees and the workers. It is also appreciated that the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) has focused on violence against women. But what about the environment? 

Don’t any of the political parties care about the environmental massacres causing local and national sorrow in recent years? 

I am excluding the HDP because it focuses on the environment much more than the other parties and, for instance, because it clearly says “no” to the nuclear power plant. 

However, the CHP was surprising. The CHP said it was not categorically against nuclear power plants but they were not going to allow risky plants to be built in Turkey in the short-term. I doubt there is an expert in the CHP on nuclear power plants because, very simply put, there is no such thing as a “zero risk nuclear plant.” All of the nuclear power plants built on earth up to now were risky; they were built knowing that risk. Well, some of them exploded. 

Also, saying they do not oppose nuclear power categorically means they agree with the very serious environmental issues caused by them, such as the warming of the sea causing the death of many fish, as well as nuclear waste, which does not dissolve in nature for a million years. 

We are making fun of those who say “We are the most environmentalist ones,” but they are also quite funny, those who blame them for environmental massacres but at the same time tolerate nuclear power plants.  

On the other hand, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu said they may continue such projects as Istanbul’s third airport and third bridge because of the “continuity of the state” principle. If they come to power, they would look for ways to minimize the environmental damage of both projects, they say. 

Well, guys, both the third bridge and the third airport constructions raped the environment long ago. Migrant birds have died making stopovers at dumping sites. 

The only way to stop further damage to the environment is to stop these projects. 

You could stop the third airport project. You could add a parallel runway to the Atatürk and Sabiha Gökçen airports with a cost of $2 billion each and meet the over 120 million annual passenger demand. 

If you continue these projects because of the continuity of the state, then you would continue the environmental damage. Both this airport and the third bridge will obviously trigger other construction activities around them, creating infrastructure and transportation needs. 

If you continue the projects, you would be opening the North Forests, which are the living veins of the city, hosting the most precious ecologic systems of Istanbul, to bloodthirsty projects. 

Even if you do not do it personally - which would be a total daydream - you would be paving the way for future governments. 

The third airport will trigger development projects from Kemerburgaz to Hadımköy. The land would be open to building projects and the last green zones of Istanbul will be wasted.

Do you know, CHP, where the filling material will come from for the third airport? Let me answer this: It will come from urban transformation, the one that is vandalizing Istanbul mercilessly. 

Do you agree with that, CHP? 

It is either through ignorance that the CHP does not have straightforward and clear language opposing coal and nuclear power plants and mega projects… Or they want to attract the votes of those voters who support and love mega projects. But, meanwhile, they are losing the vote of the young environmentalist voter. 

If it is none of the above and if the CHP genuinely believes in these projects, then it is no different than the Justice and Development Party.