What is COP31 and why does it matter?

Almost 200 countries are meeting in Turkey to negotiate how to tackle climate change at COP31.

The summit is not primarily about persuading countries that climate change is happening.

It is about persuading them to agree on what they are prepared to do about it, how quickly they will act, and who will pay.

Here, Environment Correspondent George Lee provides a guide to what COP31 is, why it matters, what countries are arguing about, why agreement is so difficult and what the outcome could mean for Ireland.

---

What exactly is COP31, and why are so many countries gathering in Turkey?

COP31 is the world's biggest annual gathering devoted to tackling climate change.

Representatives of almost 200 countries are meeting in Antalya, Turkey, from 9 to 20 November to negotiate how the world should respond to rising global temperatures.

COP stands for Conference of the Parties, meaning the countries that signed up to the United Nations climate convention agreed in 1992.

This is the 31st such meeting.

Turkey is hosting the conference, while Australia's Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen is leading the formal negotiations. The basic purpose is to get countries to work together on a problem that no country can solve on its own.

Why is climate change such a serious problem?

The Earth's climate is changing because human activities, particularly the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, are releasing enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These gases trap heat that would otherwise escape into space.

The resulting rise in global temperatures is causing more intense heatwaves, heavier rainfall, droughts, melting ice and rising sea levels.

These changes threaten homes, infrastructure, food production, water supplies, ecosystems and human health.

Climate change is not simply an environmental problem.

It is increasingly an economic, social and security problem, affecting how societies function and how people live.

What is the famous 1.5C target, and why does it matter?

In 2015, nearly every country in the world agreed to try to limit global warming to 1.5C above the temperatures that prevailed before industrialisation.

The agreement was reached in Paris and is known as the Paris Agreement.

Every additional fraction of a degree increases the likelihood and severity of damaging climate impacts.

The difficulty is that the world is now expected to exceed 1.5C of sustained warming.

The latest UN analysis suggests that if all countries succeed in delivering their existing climate promises global temperatures could still rise by approximately 2.8C this century.

The challenge is therefore to limit how far temperatures rise and, ultimately, bring them back down as quickly as possible.

Haven't countries already agreed to reduce emissions? Why then do they keep meeting?

Yes, but there is a fundamental difference between making a promise and delivering it.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries submit national climate plans outlining how they intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These are known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs.

The problem is that the combined promises are still insufficient to prevent dangerous global warming, and many countries are struggling to deliver even what they have promised.

A major purpose of COP31 is to close the gap between ambition and action.

The key question is no longer simply what governments are promising to do in future, but what they are actually achieving today.

Why is the future of coal, oil and gas such a contentious issue?

Fossil fuels are at the centre of the climate problem because burning them is responsible for most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

The world agreed at COP28 in Dubai in 2023 that it needed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

But countries remain deeply divided over how quickly that should happen and what such a transition would involve.

Some want firm timetables for reducing dependence on coal, oil and gas.

Others resist commitments that could threaten their economies, energy supplies or export revenues.

What are the alternatives, and how realistic is the transition to clean energy?

The world already has many of the technologies needed to make substantial reductions in emissions.

Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps and improved electricity networks are increasingly important parts of energy systems.

In many circumstances, renewable electricity is now economically competitive with fossil fuels.

But changing the world's energy system is enormously complicated.

Countries need investment, infrastructure, raw materials, skilled workers and reliable electricity supplies.

Some are worried about the economic consequences for industries and communities that depend on fossil fuels. COP31 will examine how to accelerate the transition while maintaining energy security, affordability and employment.

Why are countries discussing floods, droughts and heatwaves if the main objective is to reduce emissions?

Because climate change is already happening. That means countries must do two things simultaneously: reduce the emissions that cause further warming and prepare for the changes already under way.

This second task is referred to as "climate adaptation".

It includes stronger flood defences, more resilient buildings, improved water management, agricultural changes and better early-warning systems for extreme weather.

For some countries, particularly those experiencing devastating droughts, floods and rising seas, climate adaptation is an immediate matter of survival.

One of the major arguments at COP31 is about how much financial assistance developing countries should receive to protect themselves against these growing threats.

Why is money one of the biggest sources of disagreement?

Tackling climate change requires enormous investment, particularly in poorer countries that cannot afford the necessary infrastructure and technology.

Wealthier countries have historically produced a large proportion of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, and developing countries argue that they should therefore provide more financial assistance.

At COP29, which took place in Baku in 2024, countries agreed to a goal of mobilising at least $300 billion of climate finance annually for developing countries by 2035, and to scale that up to $1.3 trillion annually from public and private sources.

But major disagreements remain about where the money will come from, whether it will actually be delivered and how much should be provided as grants rather than loans.

What is meant by climate justice, and why do poorer countries feel unfairly treated?

One of the most difficult realities of climate change is that the countries least responsible for causing it are frequently among those suffering its worst consequences.

Small island nations, for example, have contributed very little to global emissions, yet some face serious threats from rising sea levels.

Other developing countries are experiencing increasingly damaging droughts, floods and extreme heat.

They argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expect them to bear the costs of a problem created largely by the industrialisation of richer countries.

This is also why developing countries are seeking financial assistance for what is called loss and damage - the destruction and economic losses caused by climate impacts that cannot be prevented through adaptation.

The argument is ultimately about responsibility, fairness and the distribution of costs.

Why is it so difficult to get nearly 200 countries to agree?

Imagine trying to negotiate a single economic and environmental policy that must be acceptable to almost every government in the world.

Some countries are wealthy; others are desperately poor. Some depend on oil and gas exports.

Others are particularly vulnerable to climate disasters. Some want rapid emission reductions, while others argue that they need time to develop their economies.

Governments must also consider domestic politics, industries, jobs, inflation and energy prices.

COP decisions are generally reached by consensus, rather than by majority.

This means negotiators must find wording that countries can accept despite their differences.

A single disputed paragraph can hold up an agreement for days.

The resulting compromises can sometimes be weaker than many countries - and climate scientists - would like.

Why should people in Ireland care about negotiations taking place thousands of kilometres away?

Climate change does not respect national borders, and Ireland is already experiencing its effects.

Rising temperatures, changes in rainfall patterns, heavier downpours and rising sea levels present risks for homes, businesses, infrastructure, agriculture and coastal communities.

Ireland also has international commitments to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite some progress, the Environmental Protection Agency has warned that the country remains well short of what is required to meet its 2030 targets.

International agreements influence European and Irish climate policy, investment decisions, energy costs and the pace of economic change.

What happens at COP31 therefore has implications not only for the global environment but also for Ireland's economy and everyday life.

What would count as a successful COP31, and does the summit really make a difference?

A successful COP31 would produce credible progress on reducing emissions, accelerating the move away from fossil fuels, increasing climate finance and helping vulnerable countries adapt to the consequences of global warming.

It would also strengthen international cooperation at a time of considerable geopolitical tension.

But the real test however, will be whether governments subsequently deliver measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and provide the funding they have promised.

No single COP can solve the climate crisis.

The significance of COP31 lies in whether it moves the world closer to doing what the science says is necessary, and whether political promises are followed by practical action.