Climate change is often presented as an environmental problem requiring technological innovation, international cooperation and changes in individual behavior. However, such an understanding overlooks its deeper political, economic and ethical dimensions. The climate crisis is not simply the consequence of excessive greenhouse gas emissions; it is also the product of an international economic system built upon industrial expansion and fossil-fuel dependency. Consequently, the central question of international climate negotiations in COP 31 is not merely how to reduce emissions, but who should bear the financial, political and social costs of addressing climate change, and on what ethical grounds these responsibilities should be distributed.

The 2015 Paris Agreement represented an important milestone in international climate governance by establishing the objective of keeping global temperature increases well below 2°C while pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. Nevertheless, its implementation has exposed significant contradictions between international commitments and national economic interests. The tenth anniversary of the Agreement in 2025, the outcomes of COP30 in Brazil and the opening of COP31 in Türkiye in November 2026 demonstrate that climate diplomacy remains constrained by competing development priorities and unequal economic power. It is argued that climate change challenges the fundamental assumptions of unlimited economic growth and the pursuit of profit through resource extraction.

This article argues that climate change should be understood not simply as a failure of international environmental governance, but as a crisis of economic justice, political accountability and humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

The Paris Agreement introduced a relatively flexible system of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), allowing countries to establish their own emissions-reduction targets. However, its dependence on voluntary national commitments created a fundamental weakness: there is no guarantee that individual national ambitions will collectively deliver the emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change. By 2025, this contradiction had become increasingly apparent. The United Nations Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2025 estimated that even the implementation of national climate pledges would leave the world facing approximately 2.3–2.5°C of warming by 2100, while current policies suggested a trajectory closer to 2.8°C. This demonstrates the persistent gap between international commitments and the political and economic realities of implementation.

The North–South Divide and Climate justice

One of the most persistent disagreements in international climate negotiations concerns the distribution of responsibility and financial obligations between developed and developing countries. Historically industrialized countries, particularly in Europe and North America, accumulated considerable wealth through industrialization powered by coal, oil and gas. Their historical contribution to atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations is therefore substantially greater than that of many developing countries. Conversely, countries in the Global South frequently experience disproportionate climate impacts despite having contributed relatively little to historical emissions.

The Global South consequently argues that climate finance should not be understood as charitable assistance from wealthy countries. Rather, it represents an obligation arising from historical responsibility and environmental injustice. The disagreement became particularly visible at COP29 in Baku in 2024, where countries agreed on a new climate finance target of at least $300 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries, alongside efforts to scale up finance from all sources to $1.3 trillion annually. It is argued that responsibility cannot be attributed exclusively to Western industrialized countries. Wealthy oil-producing economies must also be assessed in relation to their present emissions, resource consumption and financial capacity.

The Cost of Climate Change and Cost of Inaction

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report identifies increasing economic damages, irreversible ecological losses and escalating adaptation challenges. It also warns that delaying mitigation increases future costs through infrastructure lock-in, stranded assets and reduced adaptation opportunities. The question is who bears the consequences when governments prioritize short-term economic growth over long-term environmental protection.

From an Islamic perspective, environmental destruction and the failure to address climate change are not merely policy shortcomings. They can also be interpreted as failures to fulfil the moral mandate and trust placed upon humanity. The consequences of present decisions will be inherited by future generations that have had no opportunity to participate in the decisions producing the crisis. Climate inaction therefore raises fundamental questions of intergenerational justice and moral responsibility.

The Politics of Climate Denial

The climate crisis is inseparable from a system that encourages endless growth despite the ecological limits of the planet. Islamic environmental ethics offer a comparable criticism, although grounded in a different philosophical tradition. The Islamic concept of overconsumption (Israf) questions the moral legitimacy of lifestyles characterized by excessive energy consumption, unnecessary material accumulation and the depletion of natural resources since encouraging individuals to reduce waste cannot substitute for regulating industrial pollution, reforming energy systems or holding corporations accountable for environmental damage. The Qur’anic concept of Mizan, or balance, is especially relevant since it describes the balance established in creation and instructs humanity not to transgress within it. Mizan therefore connects environmental sustainability with social and economic justice.

COP28, held in the United Arab Emirates in 2023, was historically significant because the UAE Consensus explicitly called for transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, alongside commitments to expand renewable energy and improve energy efficiency. The agreement recognized the need to move away from fossil fuels but did not establish a binding timetable for their global phase-out.

Lessons From Previous COPs: From Promises to Climate Action

The history of international climate negotiations offers important lessons for understanding why the gap between climate commitments and implementation persists. Since the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, successive COPs have produced significant agreements, institutional mechanisms and political declarations. Yet continuing emissions and increasing climate vulnerability demonstrate that diplomatic progress does not necessarily translate into ecological transformation.

The first lesson is that international agreements are necessary but insufficient without accountability and implementation. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted at COP3 in 1997, established legally binding emissions-reduction targets for developed countries and represented an important development in international climate governance. However, limited participation by major emitters and the absence of binding obligations for developing countries weakened its overall effectiveness.

The second lesson is that climate finance is inseparable from climate justice. The Copenhagen Summit, COP15 in 2009, exposed deep divisions between developed and developing countries over historical responsibility, financial commitments and the right to development. Although developed countries pledged to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020, delivery was delayed, and developing countries continued to question the adequacy and accessibility of climate finance. COP29 in Baku subsequently established a new target of at least $300 billion annually by 2035, alongside the broader ambition of scaling up finance from all sources to $1.3 trillion annually. These experiences demonstrate that climate finance cannot be treated as an optional act of international solidarity. It must reflect historical responsibility, economic capacity and the vulnerability of affected populations.

The third lesson is that recognizing fossil fuels in climate agreements does not automatically produce an energy transition. COP28 in Dubai was historically important because the UAE Consensus explicitly called for transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems. However, the agreement did not establish a binding timetable for a global fossil-fuel phase-out. COP30 in Belém also exposed the difficulty of securing explicit commitments on fossil-fuel transition. The lesson is that climate diplomacy must move beyond carefully negotiated language towards measurable reductions in fossil-fuel production and consumption. The Islamic concept of Mizan reinforces this argument by establishing ecological balance as a moral responsibility rather than a negotiable economic preference.

The fourth lesson is that adaptation and loss and damage must receive the same political seriousness as emissions reduction. Climate negotiations have historically concentrated heavily on mitigation, often overlooking the immediate needs of countries already experiencing severe climate impacts. The establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage at COP19 in 2013 and the agreement to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2022 were important developments.

The fifth lesson is that climate action requires democratic participation and a transformation of development priorities. The experience of successive COPs demonstrates that agreements negotiated by governments cannot achieve meaningful change without the participation of civil society, Indigenous communities, youth, women, scientific institutions and vulnerable populations. Climate policies that ignore social inequalities risk reproducing the very injustices they claim to address. The challenge is therefore not simply to produce more ambitious declarations at each COP, but to close the gap between international commitments, national implementation and social justice.

COP31 in Türkiye: An Opportunity for a different climate agenda

COP31, taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026, presents an opportunity to address these unresolved contradictions. Its institutional arrangement, with Türkiye hosting the conference and Australia leading the formal negotiations, provides an interesting platform for international cooperation. More importantly, Türkiye’s position as a Muslim-majority country creates an opportunity to bring Islamic environmental ethics into broader discussions on climate governance.

The significance of COP31 should extend beyond negotiating emissions targets and financial commitments. It could provide a platform for advancing an ethical understanding of climate finance, strengthening adaptation in vulnerable Muslim-majority countries and encouraging Islamic institutions to participate more actively in environmental policymaking. Vulnerable countries need financial resources to strengthen infrastructure. However, this financing should not deepen existing patterns of economic dependency through excessive borrowing or externally imposed development priorities.

COP31 must also address the contradiction between renewable energy expansion and the continued dependence on fossil fuels. For oil-producing economies, this requires a serious reconsideration of economic diversification, energy subsidies, investment priorities and the relationship between national prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Conclusion: Climate diplomacy and Ethics

The North–South debate exposed the historical and structural inequalities underpinning climate change. It is imperative to harness scientific knowledge and reform economic structures responsible for environmental destruction. The five lessons from previous COPs reinforce the urgency of this transformation. International agreements must be accompanied by accountability and implementation; climate finance must reflect historical responsibility; fossil fuel commitments must translate into measurable transitions; adaptation and loss and damage must receive adequate attention; and climate governance must become more inclusive.

The significance of COP31 in Türkiye should therefore extend beyond negotiating stronger climate targets and financial commitments. It offers an opportunity to connect international climate diplomacy with ethical traditions capable of challenging the dominant assumptions of contemporary development. It also provides an opportunity for the Islamic world to move from being primarily a participant in climate negotiations towards becoming an active contributor to the intellectual and ethical foundations of global climate governance. The ultimate challenge for COP31 is whether the international community can move beyond the politics of climate promises towards a genuinely just ecological transformation.