Arguments over finance dominate COP climate talks once again
The COP31 climate summit in Turkey has got off to a chaotic start and a familiar dispute over who should pay for tackling climate change is already emerging as the biggest obstacle to progress
The United Nations COP31 climate summit opened on 9 November in Antalya, Turkey, with a few hiccups. The Mediterranean resort city seemed unprepared for the influx of delegates. In the corridors, almost everyone had a story about confused bus drivers, seemingly endless queues and jam-packed buses. On the first day, it took this reporter over 2 hours to reach the venue, a journey of about 20 kilometres. It took another 2 hours to get my badge.
Delegations have reported frustration due to representatives missing opening meetings because they couldn’t reach the venue on time. On 10 November, attendees were advised to arrive at the venue before 8am, or they would have to wait until past noon to allow world leaders to gather for the Leaders’ Summit. But while the logistical problems have caused plenty of headaches, the negotiations themselves have got off to a relatively smooth start, with the official agenda adopted without major difficulties.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t disagreements. African countries had pushed for a dedicated agenda item on tripling international finance to help low-income countries adapt to climate change. Although the proposal didn’t make it onto the agenda, African negotiators continue to press for more support, both to protect their populations from worsening climate impacts and to expand access to electricity.
Advertisement
In his opening address, Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, warned that extreme weather disasters are already devastating communities around the world. But he also stressed that solutions are increasingly affordable. Renewable energy helped the world avoid around half a trillion dollars in fossil fuel costs last year, he said, with a further $265 billion saved in the first half of 2026.
Turkey, which is hosting the summit in partnership with Australia, has made electrification a priority, proposing that electricity account for 35 per cent of global final energy consumption by 2035. Countries expressed broad support for the 35×35 pledge. Australia, Ethiopia, Germany and Norway explicitly endorsed the target, while the EU and UK emphasised the importance of electrification without formally backing the pledge. Low-income countries, including Fiji and Pakistan, welcomed the ambition, but stressed the need for finance, infrastructure and implementation support.
At a plenary session on 10 November, Maciu Nalumisa, Fiji’s minister for local government, said that while his country welcomes the 35×35 global electrification pledge, “pledges rarely fail on ambition – they fail in delivery.”
The hosts also intend to produce a final political document, known as a cover text. This could acknowledge the likelihood of temporarily exceeding the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C warming threshold and outline measures to limit the consequences.
The motto of the conference, “dialogue, consensus, action”, is clear. But every proposed solution leads back to the same old question: who pays?
Low-income countries argue that wealthy nations, whose historical emissions are largely responsible for global warming, must provide the financial support needed to address its consequences.
The issue is particularly urgent for adaptation: measures such as flood defences, drought-resistant crops and improved water infrastructure that help communities cope with climate impacts already under way.
At COP30 in Brazil last year, countries pledged to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035, but even achieving that goal would leave an enormous shortfall.
According to the UN Environment Programme’s 2026 Adaptation Gap Report, developing countries will need around $305 billion annually by 2035 to protect themselves against worsening climate impacts. Even if adaptation finance triples, projected annual funding of $85 billion to $120 billion would cover only 20 to 29 per cent of estimated needs, after accounting for inflation.
The problem is also how unevenly this contribution is distributed. Some countries, such as Denmark and Ireland, dedicate relatively large shares of their international climate finance to adaptation, while others, such as Italy, Japan and Norway, allocate much smaller proportions.
“Countries like the UK and Germany proclaim climate leadership while continuing to prop up fossil fuel expansion at home and abroad,” said Laurie van der Burg of campaign group Oil Change International, at a press conference on 11 November. The UK, for example, has cut its planned international climate funding over the next five years by a fifth, and Germany reduced its public climate finance by €1.3 billion in 2025.
African countries continue to raise their voices. They say nations that grew wealthy by burning fossil fuels have a responsibility to help others develop without following the same emissions-intensive pathway.
At a press briefing on 10 November, Nana Antwi-Boasiako Amoah, chair of the African Group of Negotiators, said a just energy transition must be backed by credible financial and practical support to meet the needs of developing countries.
The dispute has also brought renewed attention to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which states that developed countries shall provide financial resources to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to climate change. The G77 and China, the largest negotiating bloc of developing countries, called for greater focus on this obligation.
For the bloc, climate finance shouldn’t depend entirely on voluntary pledges or private investment. Wealthy countries have an existing responsibility to provide support, and developing nations want that commitment translated into predictable funding.
Meanwhile, outside the negotiating rooms, climate activists are also demanding a change in priorities, questioning why governments can mobilise enormous sums for military spending while struggling to provide the finance needed to confront the climate crisis.
“There is money to destroy the world, but there is no money to protect it?” asked Niranjali Amerasinghe of ActionAid USA, at a press conference on 11 November.
What's Your Reaction?
