At COP31 in Antalya, governments are trying to advance climate action while the geopolitical conditions for cooperation are deteriorating. Leaders have warned that wars and trade disputes cannot be allowed to divert attention from global warming, yet the same conflicts are disrupting energy markets, straining public finances and making national governments more cautious about commitments that could raise near-term costs.
The central proposal under discussion is a Turkish-backed target to raise electricity’s share of global energy use to 35% by 2035, from just over 20% today. Electrification would mean replacing fossil fuels with electricity in transport, buildings and industry, but its climate value depends on how that electricity is produced. Critics therefore argue that a numerical electrification goal, without a stronger pathway away from coal, oil and gas, could increase demand without delivering the emissions cuts required.
Energy security has returned to the centre
The tension is visible in energy markets. The war involving the United States, Israel and Iran has disrupted Middle Eastern oil shipments, sent fuel prices higher and prompted governments to seek more reliable supplies. Strait of Hormuz uncertainty has kept geopolitical risk in crude prices even as regional production has begun to recover. Reuters reported that oil prices rose on November 12 after an earlier decline, with the prospect of renewed disruption offsetting pressure from returning output.
For climate negotiators, that volatility cuts both ways. Higher and less predictable fossil-fuel prices can strengthen the economic case for renewables, efficiency and electrification. But governments facing inflation or shortages may also prioritise immediate supply over long-term decarbonisation. Oil-producing states, meanwhile, have an incentive to defend the role of hydrocarbons even while presenting themselves as partners in an energy transition.
“Wars and trade disputes should not be allowed to distract the world from its struggle to combat global warming,” leaders told the conference. Reuters reported.
The 1.5-degree goal is under pressure
The urgency is reinforced by the latest scientific and policy assessments. A United Nations report cited by Reuters found that the world is on course to exceed the 1.5-degree Celsius limit that countries agreed to pursue under the Paris Agreement. That threshold was never a guarantee that impacts would suddenly become catastrophic beyond it; it is a political and scientific benchmark intended to limit the severity of heat, sea-level rise, ecosystem loss and other risks. Each increment of warming, however, increases exposure.
Recent events are making that risk less abstract. Reuters reported extreme heatwaves across western Europe in 2026 and a glacier collapse in Nepal that triggered a catastrophic flood, killing more than 1,450 people, with thousands still missing. Such disasters do not automatically produce stronger policy. They can instead intensify arguments over who should pay for adaptation, reconstruction and loss and damage.
Policy momentum is uneven, not absent
The picture is not simply one of retreat. The Oxford Climate Policy Monitor, whose latest dataset covers 39 countries representing more than 85% of global emissions and gross domestic product, found continuing expansion of climate policy across the G20. Its analysis says advances in Asia, Africa and Latin America more than offset retrenchment or dilution in parts of North America.
At the same time, the dataset records 45 delayed policies, 32 weakened policies and 11 repealed measures. The United States accounted for eight of the repeals. That divergence matters because climate policy is increasingly shaped by industrial competition: countries want clean-energy investment and manufacturing jobs, but they are also protecting domestic firms and resisting rules perceived as costly or externally imposed.
Developing countries are likely to press the fairness issue. Many argue that wealthy economies built prosperity through historical emissions and should provide more finance and technology, while poorer states need room to expand electricity access and industrial capacity. Wealthier governments respond that current emissions growth, particularly in fast-growing economies, means future reductions cannot be concentrated in the industrialised world alone. Both arguments have force, and the unresolved financing gap is one reason broad diplomatic declarations often produce weaker implementation.
What comes next
The likely outcome is a compromise centred on electrification, investment and efficiency, alongside less precise language on fossil-fuel phaseout. That could still be meaningful if governments attach measurable targets for grids, storage, clean generation and access to finance. Without those details, the agreement risks becoming a signal of intent rather than a mechanism for faster emissions cuts.
The decisive test will come after delegates leave Antalya. Governments will have to turn targets into permits, transmission lines, factories and affordable power. The war-driven energy shock has shown the cost of dependence on vulnerable fuel routes; climate change is showing the cost of delaying the transition. COP31 can connect those lessons, but only if security policy and climate policy are treated as mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities.
Sources: Reuters on COP31 negotiations and global warming risks; Oxford Climate Policy Monitor; Reuters on oil markets and Middle East risks.