Temperatures have been soaring for months, energy prices are rising sharply, and climate diplomacy is at a standstill. Rarely has a COP on climate been inaugurated in such a paradoxical context. From wildfires in Europe to floods in Nepal, the year that is now coming to an end has once again demonstrated that physical risk is no longer just a hypothesis. Meanwhile, the war in the Middle East has once again placed energy security at the top of the agenda. And yet, no one expects this meeting on the Turkish Riviera to achieve a breakthrough of the magnitude of the summits in Glasgow (COP26, 2021) or Dubai (COP28, 2023).
The phasing out of fossil fuels remains out of reach
The phasing out of fossil fuels is likely to remain outside the goals of the international community. And this is despite the fact that emissions from fossil fuels reached a historic peak in 2025, and that the commitment made in Dubai in 2023 to gradually abandon fossil fuels has yet to be backed by a concrete implementation timeline. In Belém (COP30, 2025), the final text did not even mention fossil fuels by name, and the roadmap supported by around 80 countries was not adopted. With multilateral progress blocked, ambition is shifting to other areas. This year, nearly 60 countries met outside the UN framework to discuss the phasing out of fossil fuels, and several European states, including France, have published their own roadmaps.
"35 for 35": the Turkish presidency's goal
The clearest signal for the markets will come from the Action Agenda of the COP31 presidency. Its main objective is simple: to increase the share of electricity in final energy consumption from the current approximately 20% to 35% by 2035 ("35 for 35"). Other objectives complement the agenda, including a reduction of at least 25% in the energy intensity of buildings and halving the growth of waste. Together, these goals clearly outline where investment will be necessary: electric grids, energy storage, and industrial heat, among other areas. For utility companies and network operators, they represent a signal of sustained long-term demand. For industry, they imply a transformation of production processes. And, with fossil fuel prices at dizzying levels, electrification is also becoming an issue of energy sovereignty.
The energy mix: the blind spot of the agenda
It is precisely here where analysis must make a difference. The "35 for 35" goal says nothing about how that additional electricity will be generated. However, around a third of global electricity still comes from coal.
A poorly planned electrification could displace emissions or even increase them, rather than reduce them. In our opinion, several criteria are fundamental:
- Production mix. A higher volume only benefits climate action if it is supported by low-carbon production capacities.
- Investment plans. Is capital expenditure (capex) on electric grids and renewable energies in line with the stated ambitions?
- Balance sheet strength. These programmes require large capital investments, and their financing should not be at the expense of a weaker financial profile.
- Trajectories. Reduction targets must be credible, validated by an independent entity, and supported by detailed transition plans.
- Timeline. Timing also matters. Investments concentrated in the early phases increase debt before regulated or contractual revenues can offset it. Moreover, electrification that relies on gas or coal also exposes emitters to the risk of those assets becoming obsolete or losing value prematurely.
Less announcements, more action
Therefore, it is unlikely that we will see a COP of major announcements in Antalya. However, it could become a COP focused on implementation, as its presidency advocates. National policies, rather than texts negotiated at conferences, will set the pace for the transition of emitters.
