Commentary. Climate diplomacy has entered its most familiar phase: governments arrive with reassuring language, announce incremental measures and leave the hard questions—who pays, who cuts first and who is held responsible—to another meeting. Our view is that this pattern is no longer merely disappointing. It is becoming dangerous.
The warning signs are difficult to dismiss. Scientists expect 2026 to be the hottest year on record as COP31 begins, while the summit host, Türkiye, is promoting electrification and reductions in waste as central priorities. At the same time, the United Kingdom is reportedly reluctant to adopt new goals and is considering weaker electric-vehicle targets, a move critics say could undermine its longer-term climate plans. BBC reporting captures the contradiction: governments acknowledge an accelerating emergency while hesitating to impose the policies needed to address it.
The OECD’s latest climate assessment offers a broader diagnosis. Climate-policy adoption has expanded since 2015, and the number of high-stringency measures has risen, but progress slowed sharply in 2025, when policy effort increased by only 1 percent. The direction is not failure across the board; it is insufficient momentum at precisely the moment when faster action matters most. The OECD’s Climate Action Monitor documents both developments.
The case for tougher action
Targets without enforcement create an illusion of progress. The European Union’s legally binding objective of cutting net greenhouse-gas emissions by 90 percent from 1990 levels by 2040 is a significant commitment. But the European Commission is also asking nine member states, including Germany, Italy and Sweden, to submit corrective plans because existing measures are not delivering cuts quickly enough. Argus Media reports that the requested plans cover transport, buildings, agriculture and waste.
That is the model climate policy needs: clear objectives, transparent measurement and consequences for falling behind. Enforcement need not mean punishment alone. It can mean technical assistance, public investment, worker retraining and predictable timelines for businesses. But it must mean something more concrete than another declaration.
Our newsroom believes governments should publish annual national “delivery accounts” showing emissions against sectoral budgets, spending against promised funds and the distributional effects of new measures. Independent auditors should test those accounts. Citizens should be able to see whether a government’s climate claim reflects actual reductions or merely a future intention.
The counterargument deserves a hearing
Opponents of faster mandates are not all climate deniers, and policy should not pretend otherwise. They argue that abrupt restrictions on petrol vehicles, heating systems or industrial production can raise household costs, threaten jobs and weaken public support. Developing countries also reasonably object that wealthy nations built prosperity through decades of fossil-fuel use and cannot now demand equal sacrifice without providing finance and technology.
Those concerns are real. A climate transition that makes energy unaffordable or abandons workers will be politically fragile and morally flawed. Policymakers should therefore pair emissions rules with targeted rebates, affordable public transport, reliable electricity grids and substantial support for poorer countries. Climate action will endure only if people can see how it improves their security rather than merely limiting their choices.
Yet fairness is not an argument for delay. Delay also redistributes costs—toward people in flood-prone communities, farmers facing heat and drought, and younger generations with less power over today’s decisions. The choice is not between disruption and stability. It is between managed disruption now and more destructive, unequal disruption later.
From promises to proof
COP31 should judge success by implementation, not atmosphere. Governments should leave with funded plans, dates for interim reviews and a public mechanism for identifying failure. Wealthy countries should make climate finance commitments credible, while emerging economies should disclose how their own transition plans will reduce emissions without sacrificing development.
Diplomacy remains indispensable. But diplomacy that excuses missed milestones becomes theatre. The world does not need another summit that proves leaders understand the problem. It needs one that makes it harder for them to avoid the solution.
Sources: BBC; OECD; Argus Media; European Union.