COP31 needs Political Impetus, not Bureaucratic Gridlock  

The new film Digger, starring Tom Cruise and directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alejandro Iñárritu, offers a striking portrayal of the politics behind the climate crisis. Its central character, oil executive Digger Rockwell, presides over an ecological catastrophe but continues to portray himself as the world's saviour. Confronting furious European Parliament members, he accepts responsibility for the disaster but argues that neither he nor his company can be blamed for supplying the oil that politicians and societies demand. He is merely meeting global demand.

The film captures a central contradiction: fossil fuel interests continue to present themselves as part of the solution while resisting fundamental changes. Digger's company even owns a renewable energy startup, which he admits is intended to greenwash its corporate image.

This contradiction was evident at COP30 in Brazil, where more than 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists attended, forming the largest delegation after the host country. Brazil's attempt to advance a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels was relegated to a voluntary presidential initiative following resistance from fossil fuel interests. The final decision contained no explicit commitment to transition away from fossil fuels.

Eleven years after the 2015 Paris Agreement, the global climate process appears increasingly disconnected from the urgency of the crisis. The United States, the world's largest cumulative greenhouse gas emitter and a leading producer of oil and natural gas, has begun withdrawing from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. Its absence carries significant consequences. Despite contributing far below its fair share to climate finance, it remains the fourth-largest donor. Whether China, the world's largest producer of renewable energy, will assume greater political leadership remains uncertain.

COP31 must therefore be more than another diplomatic gathering. The UN climate process can still deliver meaningful outcomes, but it requires political leadership rather than endless bureaucratic negotiations. The Paris Agreement itself emerged from intense political engagement, particularly cooperation between US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The establishment of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) at COP27 also demonstrated the power of collective action. Unity among the G77 and China helped secure the breakthrough. However, four years later, the Fund remains housed within the World Bank and has received less than US$1 billion in pledges, reflecting the weakening of political momentum.

First, adaptation finance must be substantially increased. Tripling it should be a starting point, although even that would remain insufficient to meet developing countries' actual needs.

Second, the FRLD needs increased commitments and faster disbursement. It received requests worth US$2.8 billion, while only around US$340 million was available for allocation. A permanent agenda item on loss and damage should also be established, recognising it as a third pillar of climate action alongside mitigation and adaptation. Appropriate methodologies are needed to assess and track climate-related losses.

Third, the proposed two-year work programme on climate finance should become a central battleground. Bangladesh and other developing countries must push for publicly provided finance from developed nations rather than vague promises to mobilise private investment. A clearer definition of climate finance is essential to distinguish genuine commitments from inflated or repackaged figures.

Every COP risks dressing up inaction as ambition. Climate action cannot be reduced to projects worth US$20 million when annual climate-related losses can reach US$20 billion. Nor can bureaucratic dialogue alone break the grip of fossil fuel interests.

The climate crisis is both political and existential. COP31 must demonstrate the political courage and collective determination to confront the interests obstructing change, rather than leaving vulnerable nations to continue paying the price.