COP31 Update 6: On Fourth Day Governments Announce New Climate Commitments Amidst Condemnation by Activists

The fourth day of the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31), held in Antalya, Türkiye, on Thursday, 12 November 2026, saw renewed criticism of governments' insufficient climate action by activists, while developing countries warned about the growing human costs of global warming. Governments meanwhile, affirmed their commitment to the green transition by announcing new measures to cut methane emissions. 

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg made her first appearance at the annual UN climate negotiations in five years, sharply criticizing governments for failing to prevent environmental degradation. Speaking alongside activists from Nepal, Canada and Australia, the 23-year-old argued that environmental destruction was the consequence of political decisions and inaction. "The planet is not dying, it is being killed," she declared. She also connected the climate crisis to armed conflicts and humanitarian emergencies, warning of a future marked by increasing environmental destruction and violations of basic rights.

Political leaders attending the summit similarly highlighted the immediate consequences of climate change. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, the only G7 leader present, stressed that the climate crisis was already damaging lives and livelihoods. He reaffirmed the UK's commitment to achieving net-zero emissions and supported proposals to accelerate the electrification of national economies. 

The human consequences of climate-related disasters were further underlined by Nepal's Environment Minister Gita Chaudhary, who recalled the devastating glacier-related floods and landslides that struck the country in August, killing more than 1,500 people. Describing the disaster as a "mountain tsunami", she highlighted the irreparable loss of lives and cultural heritage. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa addressed the environmental consequences of the three-year war with Israel. He described the destruction of water supplies, sewage infrastructure and agricultural land in Gaza, arguing that Israeli restrictions on access to natural resources had further intensified Palestine's climate challenges.

Thursday’s major event was the Leaders' Level Methane and Other Non-CO₂ Greenhouse Gases Summit, co-hosted by Brazil, China and the United Kingdom alongside the COP31 Presidency. Chaired by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the meeting brought together government representatives, international organisations and climate finance institutions to accelerate reductions in methane and other non-CO₂ greenhouse gases. Philanthropic partners announced more than 480 million dollars in additional funding, building on over 530 million dollars already delivered since the Global Methane Pledge was launched in 2021. The new commitments will support emission reductions across energy, agriculture and waste, besides initiatives involving black carbon, clean cooking, transport and cooling.

The Super Pollutant Country Action Accelerator further reinforced international cooperation. Speaking for the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) in the UK's role as Co-Chair, UK Climate Minister Katie White announced pledges to double the initiative's funding, bringing it to 50 million dollars. The budget increase reflects the accession of seven new countries – Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Fiji, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines and Uzbekistan to the group made up of Brazil, Cambodia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa, who announced their participation at COP 30. The Accelerator aims to support 30 developing countries by 2030 through national teams, technical assistance and investment-ready projects. China also outlined its domestic efforts, including the integration of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases into its economy-wide emissions control target for 2035 and a target to establish 30 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent abatement capacity by 2030.

Meanwhile, negotiations on the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) exposed differences between developed and developing countries over its institutional structure and responsibilities. The G77 and China, supported by several developing-country groups, advocated a two-tier governance system combining a Party-driven political or policy component with a technical implementation-support structure. They argued that the mechanism should help developing countries implement nationally determined transition pathways through capacity-building, knowledge-sharing and improved access to finance and technology. Ghana, representing the African Group, stressed that a just transition could not be achieved without adequate financial and technical support from developed countries. 

Developed countries, however, were more cautious about establishing a new institution, favouring the use of existing UN bodies and expert groups to avoid duplication and additional administrative costs. The European Union supported an implementation-focused mechanism that would complement political oversight and align just transition policies with the Paris Agreement and the Global Stocktake. The United Kingdom and Canada also highlighted the potential role of the UNFCCC Secretariat in coordinating existing initiatives. 

Source: Anna Szedlacsek for commonspace.eu with Climate & Clean Air Coalition (Paris), The Guardian (London) and Third World Network (Penang).

You can read more about COP 31 in Antalya through regular updates prepared by Anna Szedlacsek

Update 1: A Summit Focused on Implementation, Electrification and Climate Finance here

Update 2: Summit Opens in Turkey Amid Growing Pressure to Turn Climate Commitments into Action here

Update 3: Global Push for Electrification Meets Turkey’s New Oil Discoveries here

Update 4: World leaders address Climate Summit in Antalya here

Update 5: Cities’ Resilience Grows, Adaptation Finance Disputes Persist here

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)