Last week, the municipality of Yalova, a mid-sized city in northwestern Turkey, chopped down some 180 sycamore trees to construct a highway connection on Tonami Square, which links Bursa, one of the country›s largest metropolitan areas, to Kocaeli, a major industrial town. The event, which Sabah newspaper dubbed "an environmental massacre," sparked a national debate and caused a major controversy. The mayor of Yalova, a member of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) who won the March 2014 election after several recounts and an eventual re-run the following month, responded by saying that the municipality will cut the trees into smaller pieces of wood to help low income communities. Meanwhile, local activists said that the mayor had posed for pictures to protest the chopping down of a local sycamore tree ahead of the March election. Several media outlets pointed out that the main opposition party leadership, hoping that the story will not gain further traction, conveniently refrains from commenting on the issue. Over the past decade, the environment has been an increasingly popular part of the national conversation in Turkey. The country›s rapid development certainly contributed to this phenomenon. In various European countries, the rise and popularity of green parties led mainstream political parties such as the Social Democrats and Conservatives in Germany to incorporate some elements of green politics into their platforms. In the aftermath of the 2013 Gezi Park protests, we witnessed a similar development in Turkish politics as major political parties – despite the lack of a strong Green Party – started to tell voters that they cared about the environment more than their competitors. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which some observers criticized for ignoring the negative side effects of economic development on the environment, placed greater emphasis on its eco-friendly practices in campaign materials. The CHP, completely ignoring the fact that its 2011 election campaign supported the construction of nuclear power plants, presented itself as the main representative of green politics in Parliament, which entailed inviting villagers to weekly Parliament addresses and sending parliamentarians to troubled areas. The Yalova controversy, however, will have repercussions beyond the city itself. First and foremost, the opposition leadership›s unwillingness to publicly criticize the obviously misguided actions of one of its members will understandably alienate parts of the electorate who supported the CHP due to its emphasis on environmental protection. More important, however, the main opposition's inaction in the face of such a controversial practice raises questions about the CHP elite's commitment to presenting a viable alternative to the ruling AK Party. While opposition leaders have been calling for change and told voters that they had the ability and willingness to transform Turkish politics, their actions over the past week sent a stronger message – a message of inconsistency and hypocrisy. Having talked about change for four years, one would expect the CHP leadership to keep their eyes on the big picture instead of pursuing minor, short-term goals. But the most recent episode clearly demonstrates that they are not ready to lead the nation.