Climate is MIA in Australia and Turkiye’s bids to host COP31

Catherine Abreu is the Director of the International Climate Politics Hub

In a move straight out of the movies, the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Climate Event in September put the two prospective hosts for the 2026 global climate talks, Türkiye and Australia, back-to-back in the speaking order.

Both President Erdogan and Prime Minister Albanese confidently welcomed the world to their countries for COP31. Here at COP30, the drama continues, with the Australian and Turkish Pavilions sitting side-by-side while neither country seems prepared to step back from their bid. Get your popcorn.

Except this isn’t the movies, it’s the UN-led, multilateral process charged with helping us save ourselves from runaway climate change. And, thus far, what has been conspicuously missing from the pseudo-dramatic showdown between these two potential hosts is any meaningful discussion about how either country would aim to use its presidency of the climate talks to accelerate action on climate change, in their own country or globally. The drama, it would seem, has been misplaced.

Any country wanting to host the annual UN summit on climate change should be making the case for doing so based on their climate credentials – and their climate ambition.

While some past COPs may have made us forget this, the energy and intent of current COP President Brazil, and the conversation Brazil’s COP presidency has generated at home about the country’s climate action, serve as useful reminders of what we should be striving for in the host of the climate talks.

It would be disappointing not to have a solid plan in place for COP31 and risk losing the momentum Brazil will hopefully have generated by the end of COP30.

COP host criteria

So, what should we be looking for in a COP host? First, we need a prospective presidency to be clear about the conversations they envisage mediating in the run-up to and during their summit and how those will help us advance a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy and energy efficiency, within the framework of the Paris Agreement.

We need a COP presidency focused on the question of how they can use their platform to help improve countries’ abilities to respond to the impacts of climate change and address the losses and damages they are experiencing.

We need a presidency fully engaged with using their platform to secure commitments to provide the finance countries need to take climate action and respond to climate impacts, while advancing the need to transform global financial systems so that we are tackling the problem of climate change at its core, rather than deepening it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need a host ready to commit their COP to being an effective space for negotiating, deliberation and decision making that is free from the undue influence of actors who are there to slow us down.

In other words, is the potential host ready to commit to a COP led by science and traditional and Indigenous knowledge? Are they prepared to ensure transparent accreditation processes that will expose conflicts of interest? And are they prepared and competent to facilitate an effective COP structure so that parties are given the opportunity to have the conversations they need to have, and to land the outcomes they need to achieve, without the influence of anticlimate lobbyists in their midst? If the answers to all of these questions are not a resounding yes, this is not the Presidency we need.

Moreover, a potential COP host should be prepared to use their global platform to substantially advance climate action on the domestic level.

In the case of Australia, that should involve being steered by the wider Pacific leadership on just and equitable transitions away from fossil fuels. As the second largest coal exporter in the world and with a domestic energy mix that includes both fossil fuels and booming renewable energy growth, Australia can and should be aiming to credibly lead conversations on export market transformation and power system transitions to ethical renewable energy and improving energy efficiency.

For Türkiye, affirming a direction of travel away from coal dependency is key. So far Türkiye has been opposed to this both domestically and internationally; indeed, it did not sign up to the tripling renewables pledge at COP28, even though that target was aligned with Türkiye’s own renewable targets, because the text referred to “coal phase-down”. Türkiye moving past its opposition and opening up to a dialogue on a just transition away from coal would be a significant victory for the climate.

There are many reasons a country may want to host the UN climate summit. Foremost among those reasons, and at the heart of the UN process that decides COP hosts, should be the drive to lead national and global conversations that make a real difference in tackling the climate crisis.

The post Climate is MIA in Australia and Turkiye’s bids to host COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.