Cop31 host urges wealthy countries to spend ‘much more’ on climate than defence

What is COP31, and why will it be held in Antalya, Turkey?

COP31 is the 31st Conference of the Parties, a major United Nations meeting where governments negotiate responses to climate change. It matters because nearly 190 countries are expected to address emissions, climate finance and adaptation while global heating is projected to exceed the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.

The summit will take place in Antalya, a Turkish city, in November. Turkey’s climate change minister, Murat Kurum, is the president-designate. Australia has the separate role of “president of negotiations,” meaning it will help guide the talks and seek agreement among countries.

The location also reflects Turkey’s role as host. Before the summit, delegates met in Fiji, including Pacific leaders who wanted greater attention for vulnerable island states. Antalya will be where governments must turn those concerns into decisions on energy, finance and protection from climate disasters.

What is Murat Kurum urging wealthy countries to spend more on, and how does he compare that spending with the 5% of GDP NATO countries have promised for defence?

Kurum is urging wealthy countries to spend far more on preventing and dealing with climate disasters. He argues that climate change threatens people’s safety and security, so climate spending should be treated as a core security investment rather than a secondary environmental cost.

His comparison is striking: NATO countries have promised to raise defence budgets to 5% of GDP by 2035 because they fear threats to their security. Kurum says countries have made much smaller commitments to addressing the climate crisis, even though climate risks can cause disasters, displacement and major economic losses.

Kurum’s argument is about prevention as well as fairness. He says money spent before disasters is cheaper than money spent afterward. At COP31, he and Australia’s climate minister, Chris Bowen, will also seek support for electricity to provide 35% of global energy needs by 2035, up from about 21% today.

What is climate finance, and why is it especially important for poor and vulnerable countries such as Tuvalu?

Climate finance means funding for actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help people adapt to climate change. It matters because poorer countries often have fewer resources to build protection, recover from disasters or shift to cleaner energy. Many also contributed relatively little to the emissions driving the crisis.

Tuvalu shows the danger clearly. About 10,000 people live on a low-lying atoll country that is mostly only about 2 metres above sea level. Rising waters, storm surges and intensifying extreme weather threaten homes, safety and the country’s future. A 20-hectare land reclamation project is being built there.

The article says climate finance is not reaching the most vulnerable fairly. Australia’s Chris Bowen said countries such as Tuvalu need it most but receive the least. Pacific governments want finance to be easily accessible, so local communities can actually use it for adaptation and survival.

How much global climate finance currently goes to helping small island countries adapt to climate change, and what change do Australia and Pacific nations want?

Just 0.2% of global climate finance currently goes toward helping small island developing countries adapt to climate change. That tiny share matters because these countries face severe risks from rising seas, storm surges and increasingly intense extreme weather, despite having contributed little to the problem.

Tuvalu is a clear example. The country has about 10,000 people and is mostly around 2 metres above sea level. Delegates visiting the island saw a 20-hectare land reclamation project and heard how climate threats are affecting children’s hopes of safely building lives there. Adaptation finance can support protective projects and help communities prepare.

Australia and Pacific nations want finance to be much more accessible and directed toward the most vulnerable places. Chris Bowen said countries needing help most “get it the least.” Making this a key COP31 priority could shift money toward practical protection before losses become worse.

What can happen when countries spend too little on preventing climate disasters before they occur?

When countries spend too little before climate disasters, they may face much larger bills afterward. Disasters can destroy homes, infrastructure and livelihoods, while governments must pay for emergency response, repairs and recovery. Prevention can reduce both human suffering and economic losses.

Kurum gave a simple comparison: “If you don’t spend one unit of money prior to the disasters, then you are left in a position where you have to spend 10 units of money after the disaster.” His point is that preparing in advance is cheaper than reacting once damage has occurred.

The article connects this problem to vulnerable island countries. Tuvalu faces rising waters, storm surges and intensifying extreme weather, yet small island states receive only 0.2% of global climate finance for adaptation. Kurum and Pacific leaders want more money directed to preparation, because every fraction of warming avoided can save lives and reduce losses.

Why is agreeing to transition away from fossil fuels politically contentious, and what alternative approach do Australia and Turkey emphasize?

Agreeing to transition away from fossil fuels is politically difficult because coal, oil and gas remain deeply connected to how countries produce energy and run economies. The article also notes accusations of hypocrisy: Australia and Turkey backed language supporting the transition while continuing to support new coal and gas developments.

The issue is about directness. A fossil-fuel phaseout clearly targets the primary cause of the climate crisis, but governments may resist firm wording or deadlines. Kurum said the world is already transitioning and suggested fossil fuel use could be addressed indirectly through other steps, rather than repeating the earlier agreement exactly.

Australia and Turkey are emphasizing a global energy goal instead. They want electricity to provide 35% of the energy used by homes, businesses, factories and vehicles by 2035. Electricity currently supplies about 21%. The approach could reduce fossil fuel dependence without securing a new direct phaseout agreement.

How does burning fossil fuels cause global warming, and why does the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5°C?

Burning coal, oil and gas releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These gases trap some of Earth’s outgoing heat, strengthening the greenhouse effect and raising global average temperatures. This mechanism is established climate science, although the article focuses mainly on the resulting risks rather than explaining the chemistry.

The Paris Agreement aims to keep warming to 1.5°C above the preindustrial level because greater warming increases dangers such as rising seas, extreme weather, deaths and economic losses. Tuvalu illustrates the stakes: its low-lying communities face rising waters, storm surges and threats to their survival.

The current outlook is already troubling. A UN environment programme report warned that even its most optimistic future would bring at least 1.8°C of warming. It called for immediate, sustained emissions cuts and said every fraction of a degree avoided would save lives and reduce economic damage.

Key Facts:

📌 COP31 will take place in Antalya, Turkey, in November.

📌 Turkey’s climate minister Murat Kurum is president-designate.

📌 Australia will serve as president of negotiations.

📌 Kurum says climate spending should be much greater than defence spending.

📌 NATO countries promised defence budgets of 5% of GDP by 2035.

📌 He calls climate change “the security issue itself.”

📌 Climate finance supports emissions cuts and adaptation to climate impacts.