The UN’s annual climate summit, this year known as COP31, kicked off in Turkey on Monday, as the world gets hotter – and political temperatures rise.
Over the past year, devastating heatwaves and wildfires in Europe, a catastrophic glacier collapse in Nepal, and both flooding and drought in Africa have all underscored the risk of global warming. The world is on track to exceed its goal of limiting temperature 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent some of the worst impacts of climate change, and 2026 is set to be one of the four hottest years on record.
On opening day, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world had entered “a new age of climate extremes.” He urged leaders to cut emissions faster, speed up the transition to clean energy, and provide more funding to help developing countries adapt to changing conditions.
Meanwhile, the war in Iran has disrupted global oil supply, sending fuel prices soaring and frustrating citizens already facing affordability crises. While the disruption prompted some countries to speed their transition from fossil fuels, for others the immediate priority of bringing down fuel costs has complicated energy-transition plans. That tension is one of several major obstacles facing leaders meeting this week to lower carbon emissions, transition from fossil fuels, and put the brakes on climate change.
Economic instability trumps climate concerns. For citizens around the world, reducing the cost of living is now their top priority, far ahead of issues like climate change. The World Economic Forum first warned in its 2023 risk report that a looming affordability crisis could overshadow climate change, after the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine upended supply chains and energy prices. Since then, US tariffs and trade wars, as well as energy supply chain disruptions caused by the war in Iran, have further destabilized the global economy – and people are making their frustration clear, both at the ballot box and in the streets.
In Nepal and Madagascar, popular movements ousted governments last year that hadn’t responded to calls for lower prices. In Europe, millions of protesters are denouncing high energy costs, leading some far-right parties like Germany’s AfD to call for a return to cheaper Russian gas supplies. And just this week, in the US, President Donald Trump acknowledged that a backlash against higher gas prices cost the Republicans the House and Senate in last week’s midterm elections.
Electricity isn’t always clean. Going electric is widely seen as a way to wean the world off fossil fuels. This year, host nation Turkey is championing an ambitious pledge, dubbed “35-by-35,” to boost electricity's share of global energy consumption from about 20% today to 35% by 2035. But there’s a catch: it’s not clear how that power will be generated.
The Iran war has pushed some Asian and South Asian nations, including India and China, to rely more heavily on coal to generate electricity. Turkey has also long relied on coal for its electricity production, and has no date set to end its use. Without a clean-energy requirement, environmental groups worry that a pledge to increase electricity use could end up increasing fossil fuel consumption in some countries, rather than reducing it.
No change without cash. Arguments over money began even before the summit opened. Developing countries have long maintained that wealthy nations, which produced a disproportionate share of historical emissions, must help poorer economies adapt and transition. That money, dubbed adaptation financing, can pay for weather-proof housing, drought-tolerant crops, seawalls to guard against floods, and emergency relief after climate-related disasters.
The UN’s Adaptation Gap Report 2026 found that developed nations contributed $28 billion in 2024, but the need will rise to $305 billion by 2035. African negotiators are seeking to triple contributions by that date, but even before the summit opened, a senior European Union official reportedly warned that cash-strapped governments had “no political will” to provide for extra funding.
The bottom line: Unless cost-of-living pressures ease, governments may be less inclined to take on big climate change initiatives. The irony is that the floods, fires, and droughts exacerbated by climate change also carry a financial cost – one that will only continue to rise as the planet warms.
