Active hope, not hot air: Why Citizens matter more than COPs - Gregory Andrews

Lyrebird Dreaming  –  Gregory Andrews

Author Gregory Andrews is: Founder and Managing Director of Lyrebird Dreaming A former Australian Ambassador and High Commissioner in West Africa Australia’s first Threatened Species Commissioner A leader in Indigenous policy

Last night, more than 120 people joined me at the National Library of Australia for a special Citizen COP screening of NATURE - The Call for Reconciliation, the extraordinary documentary by French filmmaker Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

We felt something that can sometimes be difficult to hold onto when working on climate change and biodiversity loss. Hope.

Not the passive kind that assumes that everything will be OK and someone else will fix things. But active hope. The kind that comes from people connecting, learning, organising and taking responsibility for our shared future.

And we weren’t alone. Across Australia now, more than 100 events are bringing people together through Citizen COP Australia 2026, an awesome initiative led by People for Nature. Aussies across every state and territory are participating, with workshops, community gatherings, films, creative events and online activities.

Meanwhile, world leaders are gathering in Türkiye for the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference. And the contrast is striking.

Thirty years of climate talks. And where are we?

I spent much of my professional life working on climate change, biodiversity conservation and international diplomacy, including as part of Australia’s UN climate negotiating team.

I believe strongly in the United Nations. We need international cooperation to solve problems that no country can tackle alone. But believing in the UN doesn’t mean pretending the climate negotiations are delivering what science demands as necessary for a safe planet.

Here’s a sobering fact. Since the UN climate negotiations began in the early 1990s, global energy-related CO₂ emissions have increased by two-thirds. They’re now approaching 38.4 billion tonnes annually. Yes, progress has been made on renewables, electric vehicles and motherhood commitments. But the atmosphere doesn’t measure promises or speeches. It measures greenhouse gases. And the world is still adding more.

Australia’s climate hypocrisy

This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is trying to spruik Australia’s climate credentials in Türkiye. But there’s an enormous elephant in the room. Australia is one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters and the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter on a per capita basis. We’re second only to Saudi Arabia!

Since we started attending the COPs, Australia's coal exports have almost tripled, and our gas exports have grown eleven fold. The emissions from burning those fossil fuels overseas are immense. Australia tries to say they’re not ours because they're released elsewhere. But the atmosphere doesn’t care whose spreadsheet records the emissions. We can’t keep congratulating ourselves for installing rooftop solar, subsidising batteries and switching to EVs while approving new coal and gas developments like there’s no tomorrow. The Albanese government has approved 38 major fossil fuel projects since 2022, locking in fossil fuel production for decades - even up to 2070!

Nor should we ignore what’s happening in Newcastle, where the council just banned climate protests with the support of NSW Premier Chris Minns and his Police Minister. Stopping protests won’t stop climate change or its impacts. Ending fossil fuels will.

At COP31 this week, UN Secretary-General António Guterres delivered a devastating observation: “The dinosaurs did not have a lobby. Fossil fuels do.” He’s right. The biggest barriers to climate action are no longer technological. They’re political.

Active hope, not hot air

This is precisely why Citizen COP matters. Last year, I rode my bicycle to AlterCOP. This year, People for Nature has taken the idea further, building a decentralised movement connecting Australians with the global climate and biodiversity negotiations. As a People for Nature Ambassador, I’ve been organising Citizen COP events in Canberra through Lyrebird Dreaming.

We’ve already enjoyed a birdwatching walk, identifying 30 species in just over two hours on Ngunnawal Country. Last night’s film screening brought more than 120 people together. And this Saturday, my dog Fred and I will be leading a Dogs for Climate Walk around Lake Burley Griffin.

These events are fun, but their message is serious. Community action isn’t a substitute for government action. It’s how we build public understanding, solidarity and political pressure that's needed to hold our elected representatives accountable.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese needs to stop expanding fossil fuel production, end fossil fuel subsidies, protect nature and hold polluters accountable. And as everyday Aussies, we need to hold him accountable by demanding those changes. What inspired me last night wasn’t simply the number of people attending. It was their enthusiasm. People choosing to spend their evening thinking about nature, climate change and our collective future. They were there because they cared about a safe future for our kids and Country. That’s powerful.

I want the UN climate negotiations to succeed. But the last 31 years of COPs shows we can’t leave the future of our planet to politicians and corporations.

Active hope isn’t wishful thinking. It’s choosing to act, even when the challenges are overwhelming. While politicians and corporate lobbyists talk in Türkiye, everyday Aussies are gathering, learning, connecting and demanding a better future. That’s not hot air. That’s active hope.

Participants at the screening of Nature at the National Library.

Invitation

Join us!

🐕 Dogs for Climate Walk — Canberra
Saturday 14 November, 10am, Lake Burley Griffin. Free, family-friendly and everyone welcome!
Register here

🌏 Citizen COP Australia 2026
Explore more than 100 events across Australia, including online activities.
Explore the national program

Gregory Andrews Climate Change Articles

• Australia’s Crocodile Tears in the Pacific 
• Climate and National Security: why is Albanese keeping the evidence secret?
• Community vs Coal: Climate’s ‘The Castle’ Moment
• Climate and National Security: why is Albanese keeping the evidence secret?
• Climate Warming Faster Than We Planned For?
• Weather Whiplash: Fasten Your Seatbelts
• Australia’s Flagship Climate Policy Is Failing to Cut Emissions
• Winter's Here, The Snowfields Are Open, But There's No Snow
• Worried About Climate Collapse? Here's Ten Things You Can Actually Do
• Fossil Fuel Fascism: When a Dying Industry Tries to Take Democracy With It
• Climate Policy Counts Dollars and Tonnes. What if We Counted the Dead?
• The Climate Crisis is a Health Crisis
• The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating
• While We Watch Iran, the Planet Keeps Burning
• Have your say on Canberra's next Climate Strategy: It will be make or break
• Science Warns of Future Where Billions Bake
• Two Years to 1.7°C: the “Prediction Game” We Can't Afford to Lose
• Emergency Photo Ops Aren't Climate Leadership
• Why Fascists Reject Climate Science
• Don't Be Distracted: Earth's Life Support Systems Are Collapsing
• Diesel rebates for miners and a new EV tax? Australia's climate policy double-think
• What Gas is That? Get to Know Your Climate Pollutants

COP31: Australia's Pacific Promises Collide With Its Coal and Gas Expansion - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia's unprecedented COP31 negotiating role faces mounting scrutiny
over its continuing support for fossil fuel expansion

Key Points

Australia and Türkiye share COP31 leadership through separate hosting and negotiation responsibilities.[1] Pacific nations are demanding climate justice and meaningful protection against rising seas and climate damage.[2] The 35 by 35 initiative seeks electricity to supply 35 per cent of global final energy consumption by 2035.[3] Australia's continuing coal and gas approvals undermine its international climate leadership.[4] The Pacific Resilience Facility faces a substantial funding shortfall despite Australia's $100 million commitment.[5] Climate finance and practical implementation remain central tests of COP31's international credibility.[6]

Thirteen-year-old Melelusi Sokotia has a dream of becoming a doctor. 

The Tuvalu teenager also fears her island home may disappear beneath rising seas. 

Her message to world leaders at COP31 carried the weight of that uncertainty. 

She wanted partnership and practical assistance rather than sympathy. 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese brought her words to Antalya as evidence of the Pacific's increasingly urgent predicament.[4]

The encounter exposed the central contradiction confronting Australia's diplomatic leadership. 

Canberra is helping direct negotiations while continuing to approve projects that extend coal and gas production. 

The contradiction has become a major focus of international scrutiny. 

COP31 offers Australia an opportunity to demonstrate climate leadership through practical decisions rather than diplomatic language alone.[4]

Governance and the Australia-Türkiye Compromise

The unusual arrangement emerged after Australia and Türkiye reached a compromise over hosting COP31. 

Australia withdrew its contested bid to stage the conference in Adelaide. Türkiye secured the physical hosting responsibilities in Antalya while Australia gained the presidency of negotiations. The arrangement also incorporated Pacific countries as important regional partners.[1]

Türkiye's Environment Minister Murat Kurum serves as COP31 President. Australia's Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen serves as President of Negotiations. Türkiye oversees the host arrangements and conference infrastructure. Bowen leads the diplomatic process, seeking agreement among nearly 200 participating countries on climate commitments and implementation.[1]

The distinction extends into the conference's physical organisation. The Blue Zone accommodates official negotiations, national delegations, accredited observers and media. The UNFCCC administers access to this restricted area. Türkiye manages the Green Zone, which provides public exhibitions, community activities and opportunities for wider participation.[1]

The World Leaders' Summit is taking place on 11 and 12 November. Its programme brings heads of government together before the remaining negotiations conclude on 20 November. Bowen's challenge involves translating competing national interests into agreements. 

His diplomatic authority depends on maintaining confidence among countries with sharply different economic circumstances and climate responsibilities.[6]

Pacific Partnerships and the Resilience Facility

Pacific nations entered COP31 after hosting important preparatory discussions in Fiji and Tuvalu. Their priorities include protecting the 1.5°C temperature limit, accelerating fossil fuel reductions and securing accessible climate finance. Pacific governments also want greater influence over decisions affecting their territories, oceans and communities.[2]

Albanese placed these concerns at the centre of his address. He recalled meeting Melelusi Sokotia in Tuvalu and repeated her appeal for international partnership. His message urged wealthier countries to recognise their responsibility towards vulnerable island populations. Rising seas threaten homes, freshwater supplies, infrastructure, livelihoods and cultural connections to ancestral lands.[4]

Australia is also promoting the Pacific Resilience Facility, a Pacific-led financing institution. Its purpose is to provide grants for community adaptation, disaster preparedness and nature-based solutions. Australia has committed $100 million as its foundational contribution. The facility aims initially to raise US$500 million for locally directed resilience projects.[5]

However, fundraising remains a substantial challenge. Reuters reported in October that international commitments had lifted available pledges to just under US$200 million. Pacific representatives want predictable funding with simpler application procedures. They also demand greater recognition of losses involving ancestral lands, cultural heritage and community identity.[5]

Clean Energy and the 2035 Electrification Target

Electrification provides the principal practical initiative promoted by the Turkish presidency. The proposed 35 by 35 pledge seeks to increase electricity's share of global final energy consumption from approximately 23 per cent to 35 per cent by 2035. It represents an effort to accelerate the replacement of fossil fuel combustion across major economic sectors.[3]

Transport, buildings and industrial production offer substantial opportunities for electrification. Electric vehicles can replace petrol and diesel engines. Electric heating can reduce dependence on gas. Industrial electrification can also lower emissions where clean electricity replaces fossil fuel combustion. 

Renewable generation, storage, modern transmission networks and workforce training remain essential to implementation.[3]

The initiative also carries economic opportunities for Australian businesses. Renewable electricity, battery storage, critical minerals and emerging manufacturing industries offer potential export markets. Australian companies can supply technologies, expertise and materials supporting international energy transitions. However, investment certainty requires consistent domestic policy and credible long-term emissions commitments.[3]

The proposal nevertheless contains an important limitation. Its headline target concerns electricity consumption rather than the proportion generated from renewable sources. Countries could increase electrification while continuing to use fossil-fuelled power stations. 

Consequently, renewable generation and stronger electricity networks must accompany the initiative if it delivers substantial emissions reductions.[3]

Fossil Fuel Approvals and Diplomatic Tensions

Australia's continuing fossil fuel approvals present the most serious challenge to its COP31 leadership. The Climate Council identified 38 new, expanded or extended coal, oil and gas developments approved under the Albanese Government by March 2026. Several projects extend production commitments well beyond 2050.[7]

The problem extends beyond emissions from Australian mining operations. Exported coal and gas generate additional greenhouse pollution when overseas customers burn those fuels. Climate advocates argue that approving further extraction undermines international efforts to limit warming. 

They want governments to establish credible production decline schedules and stop approving new fossil fuel developments.[7]

Australia's domestic climate commitments sharpen the contradiction. The Government adopted a 2035 emissions reduction target of 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels. Achieving that commitment requires substantial reductions across electricity, transport, industry and other sectors. Continued fossil fuel expansion raises questions about policy consistency and accountability.[8]

The controversy also places Türkiye under scrutiny. Its domestic economy continues to depend substantially on coal, creating tensions between national energy policies and international climate responsibilities. At Antalya, the two presidential partners face similar credibility challenges. Both must demonstrate that their negotiating leadership supports meaningful action at home.[4]

Global Climate Finance and the Summit's Stakes

Climate finance remains one of the most difficult issues confronting international negotiations. Developing countries require substantial investment to reduce emissions, prepare for extreme weather and recover from climate disasters. Many already face high borrowing costs and mounting public debt. Vulnerable nations consequently demand accessible grants rather than additional financial obligations.[6]

The Maldives President Mohamed Muizzu reinforced that position during the leaders' summit. He called for new, additional, predictable and grant-based climate finance. His intervention reflected concerns across vulnerable developing countries. Governments facing rising seas and destructive weather increasingly struggle to finance essential infrastructure and community protection.[6]

The political atmosphere also complicates negotiations. Wars, trade disputes, economic instability and energy security concerns compete with climate priorities. Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva warned that geopolitical disputes were displacing climate change from international political discussions. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged governments to accelerate action.[6]

COP31's presidency has emphasised practical implementation rather than one comprehensive new climate agreement. Its Action Agenda covers clean energy, resilient cities, industrial transformation, food security, oceans and health systems. Success therefore depends on measurable investment, accessible finance and credible national commitments. 

The final negotiations must demonstrate progress beyond speeches and declarations.[6]

Australia occupies an unusual position at COP31. Its negotiating responsibilities offer considerable diplomatic influence, while its domestic fossil fuel decisions invite international criticism. Pacific communities expect leadership measured through tangible reductions in climate risks and stronger regional support.

The electrification initiative and Pacific Resilience Facility provide practical opportunities. Their success requires adequate funding, transparent governance and measurable outcomes. Climate finance must reach vulnerable communities without adding unsustainable debt.

Ultimately, Australia's credibility depends on consistency between international commitments and domestic policy. The government must demonstrate that its climate leadership extends beyond conference negotiations. COP31 provides an important opportunity to establish that standard through accountable decisions and a credible transition away from fossil fuels.

References

1. UNFCCC: About COP31. Official explanation of the Australia-Türkiye governance arrangement, conference dates and access arrangements. Back to article ↑

2. Pacific Islands Climate Action Network: Pacific Climate Justice Demands 2026. Documents Pacific civil society's priorities concerning fossil fuels, climate finance, human rights and loss and damage. Back to article ↑

3. Chris Bowen: Speech, COP31 Opening Plenary. Sets out Australia's electrification proposal and the 35 per cent electricity target for 2035. Back to article ↑

4. ABC News: Australia Faces Climate Leadership Questions at COP31 as PM Calls for Pacific Aid. Reports Albanese's Pacific appeal and criticism of Australian fossil fuel expansion. Back to article ↑

5. Reuters: Pacific's New Climate Fund Gets $15 Million Boost but Remains Far Below Target. Examines the Pacific Resilience Facility's fundraising position and financing objectives. Back to article ↑

6. Reuters: World Leaders Speak at COP31 Climate Conference. Reports statements from Albanese, Guterres, Lula, Muizzu and other international leaders. Back to article ↑

7. Climate Council: The Albanese Government's Fossil Fuel Approvals. Documents approved fossil fuel developments and their potential climate consequences. Back to article ↑

8. Australian Government: Setting Australia's 2035 Climate Change Target. Confirms the national emissions reduction commitment of 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels. Back to article ↑

Back to top ↑

Power, Water and Heat: The Hidden Costs of Australia's Data Centre Boom - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

AI data centres are straining Australia's grid and water supplies
while governments draft the rules

Key Points

AEMO forecasts that data centre electricity use will rise from about 5 to 34 terawatt-hours by 2035-36. That lifts their share of National Electricity Market consumption from 3% to 13%.[1] The Climate Council finds that unchecked demand could make the national grid 14% more polluting in 2035.[2] Direct national data centre water use totals about 5.5 billion litres a year. Sydney Water has fielded applications for single sites needing 40 million litres a day.[3] XDI ranks Australia 22nd for climate risk to planned data centres, with one of the steepest projected increases.[4] A preprint finds that Sydney data centres intensify heatwaves, particularly at night.[5] National standards due in early 2027 will exempt 27 approved projects totalling at least 3.38 gigawatts.[6]

Software engineer Jack Tollefsen tends a community garden on Sydney's western fringe. 

NEXTDC is building a large data centre campus down the road from his workplace. 

Tollefsen has launched a petition against that project and others in suburban areas.^[6]

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts that data centres will use nearly seven times as much electricity by 2035-36. 

Water utilities, researchers and the Climate Council say the costs extend well beyond the power bill.^[1][2]

The Scale of the Surge

AEMO counts about 165 data centres that consumed roughly 5 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2025-26. A terawatt-hour equals one billion kilowatt-hours. 

That represents about 3% of consumption on the National Electricity Market (NEM), which supplies eastern and south-eastern Australia.^[1]

AEMO's most likely scenario lifts that figure to about 34 terawatt-hours by 2035-36, or 13% of NEM consumption. 

Developers have proposed 225 projects totalling 67 gigawatts, or 67 million kilowatts, of capacity. 

Cancellations temper that pipeline, since developers abandoned 36% of the projects AEMO listed in 2025.^[1]

AEMO expects business and large industrial users to stay bigger consumers than data centres in 2035-36. 

Growth nonetheless runs fast, with Victorian data centre demand nearly doubling in a year, the Climate Council reports. Demand in New South Wales (NSW) rose 18%.^[1][2]

The Climate Council's June report calculates that all proposed projects together would draw more than 21 gigawatts at peak. That equals over seven times the capacity of Eraring, Australia's biggest coal-fired power station. 

One proposed 1.2-gigawatt facility at Mamre Road in NSW would have a maximum capacity 25% above the Tomago Aluminium Smelter.^[2]

Emissions and the Coal and Gas Question

Climate pollution depends on what generates the extra electricity. The Climate Council finds that unchecked demand would prolong reliance on coal and gas. Its analysis shows the national grid could emit 14% more pollution in 2035 than it otherwise would.^[2]

The Climate Council projects that gas-fuelled growth would raise wholesale prices by up to 26% in NSW by 2035. Victorian prices would rise by up to 23%. Matching new demand with additional renewables and storage would almost entirely avoid those increases.^[2]

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation estimates that data centres without new renewables would add 5.86 million tonnes of emissions yearly. A Greenpeace Australia report by analyst Ketan Joshi cites that 2035 estimate. Data Centres Australia, the industry body, rejects the report's claims about scale and causation.^[7]

Coal closures raise the stakes. The Climate Council warns that fossil-fuelled supply would delay coal station retirements and deepen reliance on expensive gas. Renewables and storage now supply about 45% of electricity on the main grid, nearly double their share six years ago.^[2]

Water Pressure in the Growth Corridors

Servers convert nearly all their electricity into heat. University of Melbourne researcher Reza Hosseini says evaporative cooling, which evaporates water to shed heat, costs least in Australia. That evaporated water leaves the system and needs replacing.^[3]

Industry-commissioned analysis puts direct data centre water use at about 5.5 billion litres a year, or 0.04% of national use. Industry forecasts show that figure more than tripling to around 17 billion litres by 2030. Farming alone accounts for roughly two-thirds of the water Australia uses.^[3]

The pressure concentrates where data centres cluster, in outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne with stretched drinking-water networks. Sydney Water has fielded applications for single facilities needing up to 40 million litres a day. It told a NSW parliamentary inquiry that proposed facilities with water-intensive cooling could demand 250 million litres daily by 2035.^[3]

Forecasts for Sydney diverge sharply. The data centre sector estimates 1.9% of Sydney's supply by 2030, according to the Water Services Association of Australia. Sydney Water estimates 15 to 20% by 2035, building its figure from market applications and discounting unlikely projects.^[8]

Heat, Fire and Flood Exposure

XDI, a physical climate risk analysis company, examined almost 2,600 planned data centres worldwide. It found 154, or about 6%, already vulnerable to physical damage or disruption from climate hazards. The analysis covered 11 hazards, including flooding, bushfire, tropical cyclones and extreme heat.^[4]

Australia ranks 22nd globally for that risk but faces one of the steepest projected increases over time. XDI director Karl Mallon says rising temperatures strain cooling systems. He warns that electricity, telecommunications and cooling water supplies may prove more vulnerable than the data centres themselves.^[4]

Andrew Pitman and colleagues analysed existing, under-construction and planned data centres in Sydney. They found that the facilities intensify heatwaves, particularly at night. The study remains a preprint, a paper that has yet to complete peer review.^[5]

The affected area, the heat intensity and the number of people exposed depend on facility size and cooling technology. The authors recommend siting large data centres outside the city. They note that this approach could support regional development.^[5]

Rules That Arrive After the Approvals

The federal government plans to legislate national standards by early 2027. It says large data centres must underwrite new renewables, cover connection costs, use water efficiently and choose suitable sites. State and territory governments keep responsibility for local planning and approvals.^[6]

ABC analysis found 27 approved but unbuilt data centres totalling at least 3.38 gigawatts. This new generation will run significantly larger and more power-hungry than existing facilities. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the rules will cover future proposals only, since retrofitting is impractical.^[6]

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young wants a moratorium, or temporary halt, on new approvals until standards exist. She argues that rules without retrospective force, meaning power to reach approved projects, have little value. Data Centres Australia says members will keep meeting government expectations until the new rules take effect.^[6]

States remain divided. Queensland and the Northern Territory rejected parts of the framework in July, including legislated renewable requirements. In August, Energy Minister Chris Bowen said Commonwealth laws would stop states approving large fossil-fuelled data centres.^[9][10]

Australia's data centre boom is outrunning the rulebook meant to govern it. AEMO forecasts a nearly sevenfold rise in electricity use within a decade, and proposals keep multiplying. Whether that demand raises or lowers pollution depends on the power supply behind it.

The evidence reveals gaps in accountability. Approved projects sit outside the coming standards. Water forecasts rely on industry or utility estimates, and heat research awaits peer review.

Credible oversight needs enforceable rules, public reporting and clear accounting of who bears the costs. Governments, regulators and developers hold those levers. Neighbours of western Sydney's new campuses already live with the results.

References

1. AEMO, 2026 ESOO Data Centre Forecasting Overview. AEMO's explainer sets out current data centre consumption, the 2035-36 forecast, the project pipeline and cancellation rates.

2. Climate Council, Clouded Future: Managing the Risks of the Data Centre Boom. The June 2026 report models price, emissions and water risks from unmanaged data centre growth and recommends enforceable rules.

3. M. Reza Hosseini, What AI Data Centres Really Mean for Australia's Water Supply (University of Melbourne, Pursuit). A University of Melbourne researcher tests viral water claims against utility, industry and policy evidence.

4. XDI, Data Centres Being Planned in Areas Vulnerable to Extreme Weather Events. XDI summarises its global analysis of physical climate risk to almost 2,600 planned data centres.

5. Pitman et al., Large Data Centres in Cities Risk Suburban Heating (Research Square preprint). This preprint, which has yet to complete peer review, reports that Sydney data centres intensify night-time heatwaves.

6. ABC News, The Bigger, Hungrier AI Data Centres Set to Escape Looming Water and Power Restrictions. ABC analysis shows dozens of approved projects will fall outside the proposed national standards.

7. Information Age (ACS), 'Energy Vampires': Calls to Pause Data Centre Frenzy. The article reports the Greenpeace analysis, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation estimate and the industry rebuttal.

8. Water Services Association of Australia, Data Centres and Water in Australia. The peak water body compares industry and Sydney Water forecasts and explains how utilities treat speculative demand.

9. ABC News, Renewables, Nuclear, Gas? Data Centre Boom Energises Political Debate. ABC reports that Queensland and the Northern Territory rejected parts of the national framework.

10. PV Tech, Australia Sets National Data Centre Standard, Bars State Waivers. The report covers Chris Bowen's warning that Commonwealth laws will block fossil-fuelled data centre approvals.

Back to top ↑

Australia Holds the Pen at COP31 as Coal and Gas Approvals Test Its Credibility - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia leads COP31 negotiations in Antalya
while approving new coal and gas projects at home

Key Points

Türkiye holds the COP31 presidency while Australia holds exclusive authority over the negotiations.[1] Türkiye’s environment minister, Murat Kurum, says Türkiye holds the final say at Antalya.[2] The partnership agreement sets consultation as the response to any difference between Türkiye and Australia.[3] The Pacific Resilience Facility, a Pacific-owned fund, holds about US$180 million in pledges against a US$500 million target.[4] Bowen said the planned cover decision could recognise a UN finding that a temporary breach of 1.5°C is inevitable.[5] More than 500 academics told the Prime Minister that expanding coal and gas at home undermines Australian leadership abroad.[6]

In October, a delegation visited Tuvalu’s Funafuti atoll to see how the nation strengthens coastal defences against rising seas. 

The visit opened the Pre-COP, a ministerial meeting that precedes the main summit. That landscape frames the stakes for Australia at COP31.^[7]

COP31 convenes in Antalya under a split presidency. Türkiye hosts and presides, while Australia leads the formal talks through Chris Bowen, the President of Negotiations. 

The arrangement places Pacific priorities and Australian coal and gas decisions under one spotlight.^[1]

The High-Stakes Diplomatic Tightrope

COP31 divides leadership between two governments. Türkiye hosts the summit and chairs the sessions where governments adopt decisions. 

Australia leads the negotiations, prepares draft texts and works with the UN climate secretariat on negotiating matters.^[1]

Ambiguity over final authority creates the first risk. Murat Kurum, Türkiye’s COP31 President, told journalists that Türkiye holds the final say in Antalya. Australia’s team points to Bowen’s Bonn speech describing a seamless partnership with one goal.^[2]

The global spotlight raises the cost of any gap between words and actions. More than 500 academics told the Prime Minister that expanding coal and gas at home undermines Australian leadership abroad. The letter, sent days before the summit, cites research ranking Australia among OECD nations for high per-person emissions.^[6]

Brokering consensus tests Australia’s drafting skill. Bowen and Kurum agreed a presidency-led cover decision, a summary text that avoids a lengthy political statement. Governments must still adopt it by consensus, which keeps every word negotiable.^[5]

The Split-Presidency Model

The modalities, the official terms of the partnership, let the COP31 President assign an Australian as President of Negotiations. That person also serves as COP Vice President and leads the negotiations for the conference’s duration. Türkiye hosts the talks in Antalya, and Kurum serves as COP31 President.^[2]

The agreement gives Bowen exclusive authority in relation to the negotiations, exercised in consultation with Türkiye. Australia prepares draft texts and works with the UN climate secretariat on negotiating matters. Türkiye chairs the session where governments decide whether to adopt the text.^[1]

The agreement addresses disputes through consultation. If the two governments differ, consultations continue until they resolve the difference to mutual satisfaction. Türkiye also selects the Australian representative for the role.^[3]

DiploFoundation summarises the model as a gavel and a pen. Türkiye holds the gavel, and Australia holds the pen. Bowen has said he and Kurum would bring down the final gavel together.^[1]

Pacific Neighbours and Existential Threats

The Pacific entered the Pre-COP with three priorities. The region pushed to keep 1.5°C alive, reform climate finance access and add ocean governance to the UN negotiations. The Taku Pakasoa Declaration, a political statement, closed the meeting, and its title means strength in unity in Tuvaluan.^[7]

Bowen noted that Tuvalu’s highest point stands just 1.5 metres above sea level. Kurum said US$1.5 billion for 1.5 degrees would save the Pacific. Fiji’s Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Lynda Tabuya, said the Pacific will hold COP31 to that target.^[4]

The Pacific Islands Forum represents 18 nations and territories. It seeks US$500 million for the Pacific Resilience Facility, its own fund, and Fiji pledged US$10 million at the Pre-COP. One speaker told the summit that recovery funding arrives as loans, debt and dense red tape.^[7]

UN human rights experts set a high bar for Australia’s leadership. They said a historically high-emitting country should show the highest ambition at home and abroad, notably fossil fuel phase-out. They also warned of foreseeable, widespread harm to health and food systems from fossil fuels across their life cycle.^[8]

Climate Finance and the 1.5°C Target

The Pacific Resilience Facility is a Pacific-owned fund that provides grants rather than loans. Countries avoid extra debt. The money goes to seawalls, clean water and home protection.^[4]

Pledges total about US$180 million against a US$500 million target for the end of 2026. Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa set out those figures. The facility’s long-term goal is US$1.5 billion, matching the Pacific’s COP31 demand.^[4]

Loss and damage finance covers climate harm beyond what adaptation can prevent. Lowy Institute analysis says pre-agreed triggers could release cash within days through bodies such as the Pacific Resilience Facility. It argues that faster disbursement, rather than a bigger fund, is the fix.^[9]

Overshoot describes global temperatures rising above 1.5°C before falling back. Bowen said the cover decision could recognise a UN finding that overshoot is inevitable but reversible. Whether that language yields enforceable pathways remains the open question in Antalya.^[5]

Domestic Fossil Fuel Contradictions

UN experts argue that global leadership requires matching action at home. They noted that Australia has approved over a dozen new coal mines, expansions and other fossil fuel projects since 2022. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s first climate report had urged a fossil fuel phase-out.^[8]

The 503 signatories wrote from universities and research institutes in every state and territory. They sought a binding timetable to phase out coal, gas and oil, and a ban on new fossil fuel projects. Signatories include board member Lesley Hughes, Bill Hare of Climate Analytics and climate scientist David Karoly.^[6]

The UN experts also questioned Australia’s reliance on carbon offsets, credits that polluters buy instead of cutting their own emissions. They said the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act permits unlimited offset use to address excess emissions. They cited evidence that at least 75 per cent of Australian carbon credits fail to deliver real reductions.^[10]

The Albanese government defended its record in a formal response to the UN experts. It described its 2035 target as among the most ambitious in the world. It added that Australia is working to transition away from fossil fuels in its domestic energy system.^[10]

COP31 puts an untested governance model under scrutiny. Türkiye chairs and Australia drafts, so both governments share the credit and the blame. Clarity on those roles will emerge only through consultation and consistent conduct.

The Pacific needs fast grant finance and a credible route back to 1.5°C. Pledges so far cover just over one third of the Pacific Resilience Facility’s 2026 target. Frontline communities carry the cost of every delay.

Australia holds the pen while approving coal and gas at home. Academics and UN experts apply one test: consistency between domestic decisions and international leadership. Accountability depends on whether Canberra’s actions match the language it drafts in Antalya.

References

1. COP31: who holds the pen, who holds the gavel. DiploFoundation explains the division of roles, Bowen’s exclusive negotiating authority and the gavel and pen analogy.

2. Türkiye says it has “final decision” at COP31 despite Australia running negotiations. Climate Home News reports Kurum’s claim to the final say and the delegated negotiating functions in the modalities.

3. It’s official: Turkey will be boss of COP31 climate talks. Politico quotes the published deal text on consultation to resolve differences and on Türkiye assigning the Australian representative.

4. Tabuya: Pacific will hold COP31 to US$1.5b. The Fiji Sun records the Pacific Resilience Facility pledges, its grant model and the US$1.5 billion target.

5. Australia says COP31 co-presidency will work on a cover decision. Climate Home News details the planned presidency-led cover decision and Bowen’s comments on 1.5°C overshoot.

6. Australia cannot ‘credibly lead’ COP31 without reform. AAP reports the open letter from 503 academics calling for an end to new coal and gas approvals.

7. Pacific ‘Pre-COP’ draws attention to islands’ plight. Dialogue Earth covers the Funafuti visit, Pacific priorities, the Taku Pakasoa Declaration and Resilience Facility fundraising.

8. Australia’s global leadership must be underpinned by ambitious human rights-based climate action: UN experts. The UN human rights office publishes the Special Rapporteurs’ statement on Australia’s fossil fuel approvals and leadership role.

9. COP31: Rebuilding the Loss and Damage Fund for speed. The Lowy Institute argues that pre-agreed triggers and faster disbursement should shape loss and damage finance.

10. UN experts scrutinise Australia’s climate leadership days before COP31. The Point reports the UN experts’ concerns about carbon offsets and the Albanese government’s response.

Back to top ↑

Faster Warming, Slower Action: Australia's Test Before COP31 - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Warming has accelerated and a temporary breach of 1.5°C is now inevitable

Key Points

Warming has averaged about 0.35°C per decade since 2015, against just under 0.2°C from 1970 to 2015.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says limiting warming to 1.5°C with limited overshoot is no longer possible. The best case peaks near 1.7°C to 1.8°C.[2] National pledges would cut emissions only 5 to 8 per cent by 2030, against the 18 per cent UNEP requires.[3] Returning below 1.5°C needs carbon removal at four times today's scale. Each extra year above the limit raises irreversible risks.[4][5] Australian projections reach a 48 per cent cut by 2035, short of the 62 to 70 per cent target.[6] Australia presides over COP31 negotiations as 503 academics demand an end to new coal and gas projects.[7]

This month, negotiators gather for the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Türkiye. Australia's Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen presides over the formal talks.^[7]

Two findings reshape the debate. 

Warming has accelerated, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) now calls a temporary breach of 1.5°C unavoidable. 

Overshoot describes warming that exceeds 1.5°C and later returns below it.^[8]

A Faster Rate of Warming

Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Grant Foster tested five temperature datasets. 

They removed El Niño, volcanic eruptions and solar variation, the natural fluctuations that mask long-term trends. 

Two statistical tests then found acceleration at above 98 per cent confidence in every dataset.^[9]

Over the past decade, warming has averaged about 0.35°C per decade. Between 1970 and 2015, the average stayed just under 0.2°C. The team reports the first statistically significant detection of acceleration in the warming trend.^[1]

If that rate persists, the long-term 1.5°C threshold arrives between 2026 and 2029. The Paris Agreement judges the limit across about 20 years, so 2024 alone fell short of a breach. Claudie Beaulieu, whose 2024 study found no detectable surge, warns the acceleration may prove temporary.^[9]

Scientists dispute the finding's strength. Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania sees a roughly constant warming rate. Zeke Hausfather calls the adjustment imprecise and points to falling sulfur dioxide pollution as the likeliest driver.^[9]

The End of the No-Overshoot Pathway

UNEP issued its Emissions Gap Report 2026, The Point of Return, on October 21. The report concludes that limiting warming to 1.5°C with limited overshoot is no longer possible. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) played a pivotal role in the modelling.^[2]

Global emissions reached 58.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2025. That unit converts every greenhouse gas into carbon dioxide's warming effect. Emissions now sit about 80 per cent above the level that limited overshoot required by 2030.^[8]

The best remaining scenario peaks near 1.7°C to 1.8°C around mid-century. It then returns to 1.5°C by 2100 with a 50 per cent chance. Without urgent action, even that narrow path will quickly close.^[2]

UNEP says older pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed cuts from 2020 and have become outdated. Every five years of delay locks in another 0.1°C of warming. The task now is to minimise the size and scale of the overshoot.^[8]

The Arithmetic of Rapid Cuts

The lowest-overshoot pathway demands global cuts of 18 per cent by 2030 and 45 per cent by 2035. Cuts then reach 69 per cent by 2040. Each figure compares with 2025 emissions.^[2]

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the climate pledges each country lodges under the Paris Agreement, deliver far less. Full implementation cuts only 5 to 8 per cent by 2030 and 11 to 15 per cent by 2035. UNEP also says coal-fired electricity must fall at least 75 per cent by 2035 and effectively end by 2040.^[3]

Staying on the lowest-overshoot path needs global emissions to fall 5.7 per cent a year over the next decade. UNEP notes that pace outstrips the 5 per cent annual cut needed had action begun in 2019. A below-2°C pathway demands 11, 24 and 37 per cent cuts by 2030, 2035 and 2040.^[8]

Current policies point to 2.8°C of warming this century, and full NDC delivery still reaches 2.6°C. Adding every net-zero pledge lowers the figure only to 2.1°C. Renewable capacity has grown three times faster than anticipated since the Paris Agreement, which shows faster progress is possible.^[2]

Removal, Risk and Irreversible Loss

The lowest-overshoot route also needs carbon dioxide removal (CDR), pulling roughly 320 gigatonnes from the air this century. A gigatonne equals one billion tonnes, so that total matches about eight years of 2024 emissions. UNEP calls that task a huge effort.^[2]

Removal today totals about 2.2 gigatonnes a year, almost all from forests. Researchers say it must reach 8.8 gigatonnes by 2050. Novel technologies supply under 0.1 per cent of current removals.^[4]

Forests compete with agriculture for land and risk releasing stored carbon through fire and disturbance. Ocean modelling shows upper-ocean temperatures would stay flat for at least 30 to 40 years after surface temperatures fall. Researchers also flag large uncertainty over how well novel technologies would work at scale.^[4]

UNEP's September report, Limiting Overshoot, links every extra year above 1.5°C to rising risk. Hazards include faster sea-level rise, coral reef collapse, more extreme heat and wildfire, and ice sheet tipping points. Returning below 1.5°C would leave some of that damage in place.^[5]

Australia's Accountability Gap

The federal government's November 2025 projections show Australia has cut emissions 28.5 per cent since 2005. They reach 42 per cent by 2030, one point short of the legislated 43 per cent target. Emissions fell 2.2 per cent in the latest annual figures.^[6]

For 2035, the projections reach 48 per cent against a target range of 62 to 70 per cent. Minister Bowen told parliament that a gap between projections and a decade-away target is normal. The Climate Change Authority recommended that range in September 2025, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese accepted it.^[6]

On November 3, 503 Australian academics wrote to the Prime Minister. They argued that Australia lacks credibility to lead abroad while expanding coal and gas at home. Signatories include Climate Change Authority board member Lesley Hughes and climate scientist David Karoly.^[7]

The letter seeks a ban on new fossil fuel projects, including those in the Hunter Valley and Beetaloo. Federal approval for the Hunter Valley Operations extensions remains pending. Anne Poelina, an Indigenous knowledge researcher, wants the Prime Minister to hear frontline communities opposing a Kimberley fracking proposal.^[7]

The evidence converges on one conclusion. Warming has quickened, the 1.5°C limit will give way, and the task now is to shrink and shorten the overshoot.

UNEP has published the arithmetic of cuts and removals. Australian projections still fall well short of the 2035 target, while new coal and gas approvals await federal decisions. Each approval shapes the height and length of the peak.

Accountability starts at COP31, where Australia presides over the negotiations. Credible leadership needs policies that match the targets, honest reporting of gaps and a hearing for frontline communities. First Nations and frontline voices belong at the centre of that reckoning.

References

1. Significant acceleration of global warming since 2015. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research release on the Geophysical Research Letters study by Foster and Rahmstorf.

2. UNEP Emissions Gap report 2026. Summary from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, lead modeller of the report, including removal needs and warming scenarios.

3. New UNEP report lays out emission cuts needed for return to 1.5°C. UNEP press release on the Emissions Gap Report 2026, covering required cuts, pledge shortfalls and temperature projections.

4. Experts: Why carbon removal needs a 'major scale up' to return warming to 1.5C. Carbon Brief report from the Milan conference on the scale, limits and policy needs of carbon dioxide removal.

5. The UN Environment Programme warns world will overshoot 1.5°C, but return remains possible. Mail & Guardian summary of UNEP's Limiting Overshoot report and its warnings on tipping points and lasting damage.

6. Australia projected to fall short of its 2035 climate target. The Daily Aus account of the federal emissions projections released in November 2025 against the 2030 and 2035 targets.

7. Australia cannot 'credibly lead' COP31 without reform. AAP report on the open letter from 503 academics to the Prime Minister days before COP31.

8. UNEP: Opportunity has 'been lost' to meet 1.5C warming limit without 'overshoot'. Carbon Brief's detailed coverage of the report's pathways, annual reduction rate and cost of delay.

9. Pace of global warming has nearly doubled since 2015, reveals study. Carbon Brief analysis of the study's method, five datasets, breach window and expert disagreement.

Back to top ↑