*By Charalambos Ellinas
Three days after COP31 opened in Antalya, the mood remains subdued. The implementation of climate commitments, electrification and finance dominate the discussions. However, the absence of major leaders and the weakening of financial commitments raise questions about governments’ real priorities.
Does COP31 signal a more realistic approach to tackling climate change, or are countries postponing commitments they cannot afford to deliver?
The distinction matters. Realism can make climate action achievable, but it can also be a convenient excuse for delay. The first days of the summit offer evidence of both.
Absent leaders, shifting priorities
Dozens of leaders are attending COP31, including Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. President Nikos Christodoulides is also taking part. However, there are notable absences.
President Donald Trump is absent, and there is no official delegation from the US government. China is represented by Vice-President Han Zheng rather than President Xi Jinping. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also absent, as are several major European leaders.
Their absence does not mean that climate commitments have been abandoned. Countries are still represented by ministers and negotiators.
However, it reflects the competing priorities of governments as they deal with wars, energy insecurity, economic pressures and limited public finances.
Climate policy increasingly competes with national economic and geopolitical priorities, rather than being taken for granted as paramount.
The question is not simply whether governments support climate targets, but where those targets rank among their national priorities.
Electrification meets political resistance
COP31’s flagship initiative, the 35-by-35 Global Electrification Pledge, seeks to raise electricity’s share of global final energy consumption from around 23% today to 35% by 2035.
It offers a practical path towards greater energy efficiency, reduced dependence on imported fuels and lower emissions.
However, initial government support is limited. Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Kenya and a few other countries have endorsed the initiative, but many major economies have yet to commit.
Disagreements have also emerged over whether the additional electricity must come from low-carbon sources.
The proposal does not explicitly require this. Critics warn that electrification based on coal or natural gas could prolong dependence on fossil fuels. Supporters counter that electrification improves energy efficiency and creates demand for cleaner electricity.
Both arguments matter.
This is precisely where COP31 could demonstrate a genuine shift from ambitious targets to practical implementation.
Increasing electricity consumption is not the same as decarbonisation. Power grids, storage, interconnections and flexible generation must be developed alongside electrification.
Without affordable, reliable and increasingly clean electricity, the 35-by-35 initiative risks becoming yet another target without the means to deliver it.
Practical initiatives offer some progress
Tuesday’s “Energy Day” brought more concrete developments.
Five countries backed a plan to double the number of homes with rooftop solar worldwide by 2030.
The initiative could improve access to energy, reduce electricity bills and strengthen energy resilience, particularly in areas with inadequate energy supply.
At the same time, the Electrify Now Finance Coalition was announced, aiming to mobilise investment in clean electrification. A related investment programme seeks to mobilise more than $1.2 billion.
These efforts are small relative to global needs, but they show that targeted cooperation can move forward even when the broader negotiations face difficulties.
Implementation, however, still depends on finance, distribution networks, permitting and skilled labour.
Announcing projects is easier than building them.
Disagreements over fossil fuels persist
The Brazilian COP30 Presidency presented a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels, seeking to turn the COP28 agreement in Dubai into practical national plans.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on governments to set clearer timelines for the energy transition.
Environmental organisations continue to demand stronger commitments, while governments remain divided over fossil fuel production, energy access and cost.
Yet oil and gas still play an important role in transport, industry, petrochemicals and energy supply.
Aviation, shipping and certain industrial processes cannot easily be electrified at scale. Replacing fossil fuels requires infrastructure, investment and technologies that have not reached the same level of maturity across all sectors.
Governments cannot phase out reliable energy sources faster than affordable alternatives become available.Otherwise, shortages and price volatility could hit economies and undermine public support.
This does not, of course, mean that energy security should be used as an excuse for indefinite dependence on fossil fuels.
The crisis in the Middle East has sharpened these differences. Import-dependent countries are concerned about shortages and price instability, while exporters face questions about their future revenues and the diversification of their economies.
A credible energy transition must take both realities into account, rather than imposing identical timelines.
What is needed is the right sequencing of change: accelerating competitive alternatives, maintaining energy resilience and avoiding unnecessary burdens.
Climate finance reveals the biggest contradiction
Perhaps the most significant development is the sharp drop in new public climate finance commitments.
The multi-year pledges announced by developed countries have fallen by around 70%, from about $40 billion a year in previous commitments to $11.7 billion in the new ones.
Germany, France and Japan have not announced comparable new multi-year commitments, and none is expected from Washington. The United Kingdom is the only major donor country to have announced a new commitment.
These figures relate to financial pledges, not actual disbursements. Some programmes may continue without new announcements.
However, they reveal the gap between international financial ambitions and governments’ willingness to commit resources.
Developing economies need affordable finance for power grids, energy access and adaptation to climate change.
Private capital can support commercially viable investments, but it cannot replace public funding for essential projects that do not offer sufficient financial returns.
Implementation without reliable finance risks becoming yet another unfulfilled promise.
Energy security changes the picture
Wood Mackenzie’s Energy Transition Outlook 2026–27 offers a particularly interesting perspective.
It finds that countries are increasingly prioritising energy security and economic growth over climate targets.
However, in its Energy Security scenario, the projected rise in global temperature reaches 2.5°C, slightly lower than the 2.6°C in the base case scenario.
Countries seeking to reduce their dependence on imported fuels are investing faster in domestic renewables, nuclear energy and electrification.
These are the results of modelled scenarios, not certain forecasts.
They do suggest, however, that the pursuit of national interest can help reduce emissions, even when climate policy is not the main motivation.
Conversely, a path that prioritises economic growth while relying more heavily on fossil fuels leads to a greater rise in temperature.
The crisis in the Middle East and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz have increased the appeal of domestic energy production, diversified supply and resilient infrastructure.
Energy security may become a stronger driver of investment than international declarations.
The conclusion is not that energy security automatically protects the climate. It is that the technologies chosen to secure it will determine whether the energy transition accelerates or slows down.
Realism or delay?
The first days of COP31 show signs of both progress and hesitation.
The electrification initiatives and project-specific partnerships point to a shift towards practical implementation.
By contrast, limited support for the flagship initiative, unresolved disagreements over fossil fuels, the absence of major leaders and the weakening of new financial commitments highlight the obstacles.
Realism means recognising constraints and directing available resources towards achievable outcomes.
Delay means maintaining ambitious targets without the decisions and investment needed to deliver them.
The summit’s success must be judged by real finance, the infrastructure that gets built, affordable energy and measurable emissions reductions, not by yet another declaration.
Climate change still requires sustained action. But that action must be economically viable, technologically feasible and politically sustainable.
The defining question is whether governments will turn energy security and the pursuit of national economic interest into real climate progress, or use them as excuses for delay.
Let us hope that what follows at COP31 will provide the answers.
