A Just Transition Is Not a Magic Wand

 

Gökçe Yeniev, who spoke first on the panel, emphasized that discussing energy transition in Soma cannot be simplified as if workers had some kind of ideological attachment to coal. According to her, environmental and climate debates often fall into two traps: on the one hand, a superficial interpretation such as “climate change is important, but workers don’t care”; on the other hand, abstract transition scenarios constructed without taking current economic and social realities into account. ​ Yet in Soma, the question is more concrete: If coal is to be phased out one day, will workers and the local community merely be the ones affected by this process, or can they become the agents of that transition? In Turkey, high unemployment, informal employment, low wages, long working hours, weak union rights, and workplace fatalities directly shape how workers view the transition debate. ​ That is why Yeniev’s point was so important: It would be misleading to interpret miners’ distance from discussions on a just transition as anti-environmentalism. This distance often stems not from an ideological attachment to coal, but from a lack of alternatives, insecurity, a lack of organization, and concerns about making ends meet.

 

Phasing out coal or expanding energy production?

 

Renewable energy investments were also a topic of discussion at the panel. Yeniev noted that the process unfolding in Soma and the surrounding area has often functioned more as “energy expansion” than as an “energy transition.” As coal production continues, the expansion of solar and wind power plants into new areas may signify an expansion of energy demand rather than a transition. This situation demonstrates that the concept of “green transition” is not inherently innocent or fair. Investments in solar and wind energy can also create new forms of dispossession through rushed expropriation, loss of grazing lands, the conversion of agricultural lands, and the exclusion of local communities from decision-making processes. Labor conditions in the mining of minerals, the production of panels, the operation of factories, and the global supply chains required for renewable energy technologies are also becoming part of this debate. In Soma, the question was not merely “Should we phase out coal?” but “How should we phase it out, whose voice should be heard in the process, and what should we put in its place, and how?”

 

The Consequence of an Unplanned Phase-Out: Migration and New Insecurity

​

Hülya Çeşmeci Cengiz broadened the discussion to address the general crisis facing coal-mining regions in Turkey. According to her, what happened in Soma is not unique to Soma. From Nallıhan in Ankara to Ermenek, and from Tavşanlı to Elbistan, many coal-mining regions are experiencing production declines, privatizations, debates over mine closures, worker protests, and local economic crises in similar ways. Cengiz’s example of Ermenek provided a striking illustration of what an unplanned phase-out of coal mining can lead to. In Ermenek, the closure of the mines took place not as part of a transition policy planned by the government, but amid the crisis atmosphere that followed an accident. Various proposals—such as sheep farming, tractor operations, tourism, a stadium, and a call center—were put forward as alternatives for the region; however, because miners and the local population were not adequately represented in the decision-making processes, these initiatives failed to produce a lasting solution.

 

 

The result was migration and new forms of insecurity. People turned to other cities, other mines, or low-wage sectors to pay off their debts, maintain their insurance coverage, and make ends meet. Although women entered some new employment sectors, they were often positioned as cheap labor. For this reason, a just transition must be addressed not merely as a job-placement program, but as an issue of regional planning, healthcare, childcare, transportation, social services, gender equality, and local participation. As Cengiz emphasized, a just transition can only gain meaning when it is framed not as a project but as a struggle for rights. Otherwise, the concept risks becoming a glossy but hollow phrase that capital can exploit.

 

“This is not a choice, but a necessity”

​

One of the panel’s most powerful testimonies came from retired miner Çetin Erkankan. Erkankan, who described growing up as the child of a tobacco-farming family in the village of Bayat in Soma, said that after the 2000s, they were forced to turn to mining due to the devaluation of agriculture and farming. In Erkankan’s account, mining was not a choice but a necessity. The transition from a life dependent on tobacco income to one where agriculture had collapsed and working in industry or mining had become virtually the only means of livelihood also revealed the class-based foundation of the transformation in Soma.

 

Erkankan, recounting the trauma that followed the May 13, 2014, disaster, as well as the layoffs and the struggle for compensation, recalled that 2,831 workers lost their jobs after receiving a text message on their phones. He then described the practical struggle they waged alongside the Independent Mine Workers’ Union to secure their compensation—including the attempt to march from Soma to Ankara, the obstacles posed by law enforcement, the parliamentary hearings, and the process that ultimately led to the partial payment of the workers’ entitlements. However, Erkankan’s account did more than simply recall a past struggle. He noted that even retirees are being forced to work again due to the erosion of their pensions, rising agricultural costs, and the fact that farming is becoming increasingly unsustainable. This reality demonstrated that the debate on just transition must address not only the future but also today’s livelihood crisis.

 

Is the Environmental Struggle at Odds with the Workers’ Struggle?

 

One of the most debated issues during the panel’s question-and-answer session was the risk of a practical clash between the environmental movement and coal miners. Participants discussed how those advocating for the closure of coal mines to protect the environment could sit at the same table with workers whose livelihoods depend on coal. This discussion demonstrated why a just transition is not merely an environmental policy but also a labor policy. If the phase-out of coal frames workers’ concerns as “a lack of awareness” or “opposition to the environment,” then ecology and labor are positioned as two opposing spheres. However, the common conclusion reached during the panel was that this opposition can only be overcome by addressing workers’ demands for livelihoods, the right to organize, workplace safety, and participation in local decision-making processes.

 

Şebnem Eroğlu, recalling the public-interest approach, emphasis on gender equality, workers’ rights, and workplace safety that emerged during the discussion, posed the question of whether a just transition is possible within the current system or only through a more comprehensive transformation. Yücel Kurşun, meanwhile, stated that the transition to renewable energy must be considered in conjunction with new mining sites, solar panel production, battery supply chains, and labor conditions in the Global South.

 

Ayşe Buğra emphasized the importance of addressing the issue within the framework of regional planning; she considered it a serious oversight that the question “What will happen next?” was not asked as an area that provides a livelihood for so many people was coming to an end. Erol Engel, spokesperson for the Bergama Environmental Platform, recalled that in the Bergama case, despite court rulings, the mines were not closed, workers and villagers were pitted against one another, and the question of how unions are seeking alternatives must be examined.

 

The contribution by Ali Bülent Erdem, President of Çiftçi-Sen, shifted the discussion toward the direction of agricultural policies. Erdem emphasized that what is termed “lack of planning” is actually a form of planning that operates in line with the demands of multinational corporations; he highlighted that small farmers are being driven out of business, villages are being depopulated, seeds are being taken out of the hands of producers, and industrial agriculture has become one of the sources of the ecological crisis. Thus, the discussion on just transition during the panel was not limited to the future of mine workers; it also expanded to address the corporatization of agriculture, the displacement of small-scale producers, local planning, and food sovereignty.

 

There can be no just transition without a struggle for rights

 

At the end of the panel, Fikret Adaman linked the discussion to a growth-oriented approach to development. If the primary goal is to increase growth figures, then even when energy transition is tied to this goal, it continues to generate new social and ecological costs. Therefore, the question is not merely which energy source will be used, but what kind of development, what kind of public good, and what kind of life is envisioned.

 

Gökçe Yeniev stated that a call for transformation centered on the public good should be considered not as a utopia, but as an achievable political goal. Hülya Çeşmeci Cengiz emphasized that a just transition can only gain meaning through income equity, access to fundamental rights, and the struggle for those rights. Çetin Erkankan, meanwhile, stated that defending ecology and the right to life is only possible through collective wisdom, planning, public responsibility, and standing up against the greed created by privatization.

​