COP31 needs to make green transition affordable for all

Climate-related trade policy is firmly on the agenda of the 31st session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which opens in Antalya, Turkiye, on Monday, with Friday designated the Finance and Trade Day.

The aim is to align trade with climate objectives by connecting policy with practice and highlighting approaches that can support a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive global trading system.

For developing countries, the issue is not simply whether carbon emissions should be priced. It is about new climate-related trade rules recognizing the differences in development levels, industrial structures and data capacity.

Trade rules increasingly shape the pace, cost and distribution of the global green transition, as threats from the climate crisis loom large.

The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism illustrates the tensions involved. In December 2025, the European Commission proposed reducing the 2035 tailpipe-emissions reduction target for automakers from 100 percent to 90 percent, with low-carbon steel, e-fuels or biofuels intended to compensate for the reduction.

The European Commission has proposed to extend the CBAM to 180 steel- and aluminum-intensive downstream products from 2028.

Default emissions values may be applied where verified data are not available. This may lead to a situation in which entities with the capability to document lower emissions are formally rewarded, while producers with fewer resources to document them are penalized. Obtaining third-party verification can impose significant costs on exporters, particularly small-sized enterprises.

As the largest developing country, China is aware that such unilateral measures may widen rather than narrow the development gap.

At a news conference in October, Li Gao, vice-minister of ecology and environment, said COP31 should focus on implementation, address the continuing shortfalls in emissions reductions and climate finance by developed countries, and confront the new challenge posed by unilateralism and protectionism.

Li also stressed the need for multilateralism and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which is enshrined in the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

That position does not reject stronger climate standards. China is developing its own carbon-footprint management system, including accounting standards, certification and emissions-factor databases, while promoting mutual recognition of carbon-footprint rules.

The broader principle is clear. Developing countries should not be asked to choose between climate action and economic development, nor should climate rules become a new form of protectionism. The countries of the Global South need finance, technology transfer and capacity-building so that compliance becomes achievable rather than punitive.

The EU should realize that if flexibility is considered necessary for European manufacturers facing a difficult transition, that should also apply to foreign producers facing a border charge.

COP31’s Finance and Trade Day should consequently ask a broader question than whether CBAM is legally defensible. It should ask whether climate-trade measures genuinely reduce global emissions, expand access to clean technologies and support a fair transition for the Global South, or whether they simply make the green transition more expensive for those with the least capacity to pay.

However, climate-related trade requirements should be based on comparable, verifiable and internationally discussed methodologies rather than unilateral ones.

The global green transition needs open trade in renewable-energy equipment, low-carbon technologies and related products, alongside stronger environmental standards. But the concerns of the Global South, regarding insufficient climate finance, unequal technological capacity, limited market access and the risk that unilateral measures may widen rather than narrow the development gap, should not be overlooked.