SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 31 2016, 03:30pm EDT
Contact:
Ioana Ciuta, Energy Co-ordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network, ioana.ciuta@bankwatch.org
Historic Win for Frontline Communities: Plans for Coal Power Project in Turkey Shelved
Fossil fuel giant SOCAR abandoned coal power project in Aliağa, İzmir
TURKEY
Frontline communities in Aliaga, Izmir, who have been resisting the construction of coal power plants in the region for decades, have achieved a significant victory. Azerbaijan's state energy company (SOCAR), has shelved plans to construct an integrated 672 MW coal power plant in Aliaga, Izmir.
Aliaga residents have been highly concerned about the plans for new coal power plants in an area already suffering from air pollution and environmental degradation - including tree felling and damage to natural ecosystems - caused by the existing power plants and other nearby industrial facilities. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from the new plant would have made it particularly difficult for Turkey to meet its international pledge under the Paris climate treaty.
Moreover, SOCAR's coal power plant was to be constructed in close proximity to the ancient city of Kyme, an archaeological site categorised as top conservation priority, which means that construction or interventions can only be permitted for research and conservation purposes.
Since 2014 civil society groups including CEE Bankwatch Network, Re:common and others have been warning about SOCAR's fossil fuel projects in Aliaga breaching environmental, social and cultural legislation[1]. In particular, concerned that a refinery project was masking the construction of the coal-fired power plant, the groups have been calling on international financial institutions to withdraw their financial support to these project.
Seven export credit agencies (ECAs) are financing the refinery project with a total of USD 2.84 billion. These include CESCE, Export Development Canada, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, JBIC, the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation, NEXI, and SACE.
However, in a formal letter sent last week, the seven ECAs stated that SOCAR's management had decided not to pursue the coal project.
The local campaign against the fossil fuel projects received major support in May 2016, when Aliaga hosted a Break Free from Fossil Fuels rally, organised by a coalition of over 100 Turkish organisations and platforms, and held simultaneously with similar Break Free actions across six continents.
Bahadir Doguturk from the Foca (Izmir) Environment Platform, a local grassroots group, said: "The May 2016 Break Free rally was a new beginning for our collective movement against coal plants. Today it is time to celebrate our victory with this decision. It proves the rightful nature of our resistance against outdated and dirty coal projects. We will continue to fight against plans for 70 other coal projects in Turkey. We will not let companies violate our nature with coal projects, we will continue to fight."
Ozlem Katisoz, Coal Policy Officer from TEMA, part of the Initiative against Fossil Fuels said: "Energy corporations are shifting away from coal power plant investments one by one. Coal is becoming history, and SOCAR's decision is just another proof of this global trend. As part of the global shift from coal to clean energy, Turkey should utilize public resources for energy efficiency and renewables instead of subsidizing coal projects."
Ioana Ciuta, Bankwatch's Energy Co-ordinator said: "The project promoters eventually made the only rational decision they could.This coal plant has been plagued with so many legal and moral inconsistencies, from excluding it from the refinery project's EIA documentation and refusing to assess their cumulative environmental and social impacts, to dodging public consultations and overriding cultural heritage regulations, that i am surprised it took so long to give it up. "
Ibrahim Ciftci, Sustainable Investments Advisor from Greenpeace Mediterranean said:""We were lobbying the financiers of the SOCAR STEP since 2014. SOCAR's decision shows that the era of coal is coming to an end. Instead of pursuing energy policies relying on dirty fossil fuels such as coal, policy makers should focus on sustainable renewable energy resources and energy efficiency. This is the environmentally and economically sensible pathway for the future."
[1] The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation (the World Bank's private lending arm) were originally considering financial support to SOCAR's refinery project, but withdrew in March 2014. It is fair to assume that pressure from international NGOs has been a key factor in their decision.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
'New Year's Eve Massacre': Trump Administration Makes Deep Cuts at FEMA as Climate Crisis Accelerates
A former FEMA official said that the agency "can't do disaster response and recovery without" the employees being terminated by the Trump administration.
Jan 02, 2026
The Trump administration this week made abrupt cuts to the top federal disaster response agency, even as US communities face increased threats from natural disasters caused by the global climate crisis.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas reported on Wednesday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "has begun issuing termination notices" to staff at the agency's Cadre of On-Call Response and Recovery (CORE) that are effective as of January 2.
A FEMA staffer who spoke with Kabas described the terminations as "The New Year's Eve Massacre," and explained that "the driving force behind all CORE employees is supporting and enacting the mission of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters."
A Thursday report from CNN added some additional details to Kabas' reporting, including that the decision to issue the layoffs was made by Acting Administrator Karen Evans, who was appointed to the role after former Acting Administrator David Richardson resigned in November.
One former FEMA official bluntly told CNN that the agency "can't do disaster response and recovery without CORE employees" that are being laid off by the administration.
The former FEMA official added that regional agency offices throughout the US "are almost entirely CORE staff, so the first FEMA people who are usually onsite won’t be there," which will mean that "states are on their own" when it comes to disaster response.
CNN also reported that there is anxiety among remaining FEMA staffers that these cuts could just be the start "of a larger effort" by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "to shrink FEMA, potentially axing thousands of workers in the coming months who deploy during hurricanes, wildfires and other national emergencies."
President Donald Trump has been targeting FEMA for potential termination for nearly a year now, and he said shortly after being inaugurated last January that a goal in his second term would be "fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA," while emphasizing that individual states should bear the cost of responding to natural disasters.
“I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” the president said. “I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go, and whether it’s a Democrat or Republican governor, you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA.”
The Trump administration's deep cuts to FEMA come as the intensity of natural disasters is only projected to increase thanks to climate change.
According to a report published on Tuesday by the Yale School of the Environment, 2025 was the second hottest on record and was only surpassed by the previous year.
"The last three years have been, by a wide margin, the hottest ever recorded," stressed the report. "Each of the last three years has measured more than 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial times, putting the world at least temporarily in breach of an international goal to limit warming below that level."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says US ‘Locked and Loaded’ in Latest Threat of War With Iran
"Trump should know that American interference in this issue is equivalent to chaos in the entire region and will destroy America’s interests," responded one top Iranian official.
Jan 02, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Friday issued his latest threat to attack Iran militarily, warning in a social media post that the United States is "ready to go" if Tehran intensifies its crackdown on ongoing street protests.
"If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "We are locked and loaded."
Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, quickly hit back, writing on X that "Trump should know that American interference in this issue is equivalent to chaos in the entire region and will destroy America’s interests."
Trump's post came days after the president suggested, following a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that he would support another round of military strikes against Iran after greenlighting the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities last year.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said in response to Trump's meeting with Netanyahu that the Israeli prime minister "came to the US with the goal of moving the goalposts for military action on Iran."
"Trump’s comments are a dangerous signal the president may have taken the bait," Abdi warned. "The US should not be involved in joining, supporting, or enabling another war on Iran for Israel. The president should instead be pursuing a diplomatic resolution to take war with Iran off the table for Americans, not continuing to follow Netanyahu into a quagmire."
"President Trump likely views his own reckless comments as diplomatic posturing to pressure Iran to the table," Abdi added. "But such rhetoric risks seriously backfiring and is more likely to remove diplomatic off-ramps, which also serves Netanyahu’s agenda — not America’s."
"A familiar playbook is unfolding: Israeli government officials and their allies are cynically co-opting the legitimate grievances of ordinary Iranians to advance their own agenda of militarism and outside-led regime change."
The protests in Iran began last weekend in response to deteriorating economic conditions, specifically the collapse of the nation's currency. Analyst Sina Toossi noted on his Substack Dissident Foreign Policy that the demonstrations, which now include students, were "sparked by a group of mobile phone and technology merchants in Tehran going on strike."
"From there, the protests spilled into surrounding streets of the capital and, over subsequent days, into other cities across the country," Toossi wrote. "As they spread, economic grievances increasingly mixed with overt anti-government slogans, as seen in past protest movements."
Reports indicate that several protesters have been killed by Iranian security forces.
NIAC's Etan Mabourakh and Ehsan Zahedani wrote Wednesday that "as protests erupt across Iran in response to economic collapse and broken promises of reform, a familiar playbook is unfolding: Israeli government officials and their allies are cynically co-opting the legitimate grievances of ordinary Iranians to advance their own agenda of militarism and outside-led regime change."
"The Iranian people’s struggle for dignity, economic justice, and freedom is their own," they added. "It deserves self-aware solidarity from the diaspora that asserts their self-determination—not Western 'salvation' in the form of more bombs on Tehran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Billionaires Seethe, Organizers Say Proposed Wealth Tax in California Is 'Not Radical'
"Asking the handful of wealthiest Californians to contribute less than the annual appreciation on their fortunes to mitigate these crises is a small, reasonable, and administrable request," argued a group of experts.
Jan 02, 2026
Billionaire outrage against a proposed one-time wealth tax on the richest Californians reached a fever pitch in recent days as organizers began the process of gathering the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to get the initiative on the November ballot.
Without providing specifics, billionaire Bay Area investor Chamath Palihapitiya claimed in a social media post that he knows people "with a collective net worth of $500 billion" who "scrambled and left California for good yesterday" to avoid the potential 5% wealth tax, which would apply to billionaires living in California as of January 1, 2026. (The evidence for significant billionaire tax avoidance via physical relocation is virtually nonexistent.)
Palihapitiya characterized the proposed ballot initiative, which is aimed at raising revenue to avert a healthcare crisis spurred by federal Medicaid cuts, as an "asset seizure tax."
Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who lives in New York, similarly described the proposed tax as "an expropriation of private property."
The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, meanwhile, published a hostile editorial on Thursday denouncing the proposed tax and mocking its supporters, including Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
"Many progressives think of taxation the way teenage boys think about cologne: If some is good, more must be great," the editorial reads. "California, already reeks of overtaxation, but it’s thinking about trying out its most potent scent yet: a wealth tax. Just a whiff has some of the state’s wealthiest residents fleeing."
The Wall Street Journal reported that "the firms of two high-profile California investors issued announcements on New Year’s Eve about establishing new offices out of state, without saying anything about the proposed Golden State tax."
"Tech investor Peter Thiel’s investment firm, Thiel Capital, said it signed a lease in December for office space in Miami," the newspaper added. "The office will 'complement Thiel Capital’s existing operations in Los Angeles,' the company said."
Supporters say the response from billionaires and other opponents of the proposed tax—including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is helping raise money to fight the initiative—badly misses the mark. According to organizers, most billionaires see larger capital gains increases in months than the amount they would pay if California voters approved the tax.
“Asking those who have benefited most from the economy to contribute more—particularly to stabilize healthcare systems under direct threat—is not radical. It is reasonable,” Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of SEIU-UHW, told the Journal.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed the proposed wealth tax, which proponents say would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue from around 200 California billionaires. Under the proposal, most of the resulting revenue would be allocated to a Billionaire Tax Health Account, while the rest would go toward an account to fund food assistance and education.
A new expert analysis of the proposal, authored by some of those involved in drafting the initiative, argues that the one-time tax is urgent because "decisions at the federal level have put—and will put—California's healthcare system, education system, and broader economy under severe stress."
"Asking the handful of wealthiest Californians to contribute less than the annual appreciation on their fortunes to mitigate these crises is a small, reasonable, and administrable request," the experts write. "And that is all that this ballot measure does."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular