Commentary. COP31 has arrived at a familiar impasse: governments agree that emissions must fall, but resist saying precisely how fast—or how directly—the world should move away from oil, gas and coal. Turkey, the summit host, is trying to build consensus around a target to raise electricity’s share of global energy use to 35% by 2035, from a little over one-fifth today. The idea deserves support. It is not, however, a climate strategy on its own.

Our view is straightforward: electrification is one of the most practical routes to cutting emissions, but the pledge should be accepted only alongside an unmistakable commitment to clean generation, stronger grids and a managed reduction in fossil-fuel dependence. Otherwise, governments can claim progress while expanding electricity produced by coal and gas.

That concern is not theoretical. Reuters reports that Turkey’s proposal does not require the additional electricity to come from renewable or otherwise low-carbon sources, a gap that has disappointed climate advocates and some delegations. The distinction matters. Replacing a petrol car with an electric vehicle can reduce emissions over time; replacing it with an electric vehicle charged largely by coal does far less. The same principle applies to heat pumps, industrial equipment and buildings.

The case for saying yes

The electrification target has genuine strengths. It focuses on technologies that can be deployed across transport, buildings and industry, rather than demanding that every government adopt an identical national energy mix. It may also offer a politically saleable message at a moment when climate policy is often framed as sacrifice: cleaner power can reduce exposure to volatile imported fuels, improve air quality and create industrial opportunities.

At COP31, leaders have increasingly presented climate action as economic policy. That argument is more durable than appeals to virtue alone. Families and businesses care about reliable, affordable energy; governments care about competitiveness and energy security. A serious electrification drive can address all three if it is matched by investment in transmission, storage, efficiency and affordable access.

There is also a diplomatic advantage. A broad electricity goal may attract countries that would reject language explicitly requiring a rapid fossil-fuel phaseout. The negotiations involve nearly 200 governments, including major producers and large developing economies with very different responsibilities and constraints. A modest common denominator may be preferable to a grand declaration that collapses before implementation.

Why the compromise is insufficient

But compromise becomes evasion when it removes the condition that makes the target meaningful. Reuters reports that fossil-fuel producers have resisted firm language on shifting away from oil, gas and coal, while countries such as India have opposed measures they believe could limit development choices. Their objections deserve a hearing: poorer nations need dependable energy, and rich countries have benefited from fossil fuels for generations. Climate diplomacy that ignores development needs will not last.

Yet fairness cannot mean indefinite permission to lock in infrastructure that will impose higher costs on everyone, especially vulnerable countries. The answer is not to demand identical sacrifices. Wealthier economies should move faster, provide predictable finance and help lower-income countries build clean power without compromising reliability. Developing countries, in turn, should be able to pursue growth without being forced into a fossil-fuel pathway that may become economically stranded.

The summit’s credibility will therefore depend on details that slogans conceal: who pays for grids, whether finance arrives as grants or expensive loans, how workers and communities dependent on fossil fuels are supported, and whether national plans include measurable reductions in coal, oil and gas use. A target without those mechanisms is an invitation to celebrate an input—more electricity—rather than an outcome: fewer emissions.

What a credible deal would say

COP31 negotiators should preserve the 35% ambition but attach three tests. First, new electricity demand should be met predominantly by low-carbon sources, with transparent national reporting. Second, countries should publish plans for grids, storage, efficiency and access, not merely generation capacity. Third, wealthy nations should expand climate finance and technology cooperation so that electrification is not another mandate downloaded onto countries least able to fund it.

Critics will say such conditions could make agreement impossible. That risk is real. But a weak agreement can also be politically costly: it gives governments a headline while postponing the conflict over fossil fuels that determines the climate outcome. Diplomacy should seek language broad enough to win participation and precise enough to prevent accounting tricks.

The world does not need another contest between economic development and climate responsibility. It needs a bargain that recognizes both. Electrification can be that bargain—but only if COP31 makes clear that the goal is not simply to use more electricity. It is to build an energy system that is cleaner, cheaper, more resilient and fairer than the one it replaces.

Sources