Wealthy countries should spend far more on tackling the climate crisis than the 5% of GDP that Nato members have pledged for defence, according to the host of the next United Nations climate summit. Murat Kurum, Turkey's environment minister and president-designate of COP31, told a Pacific pre-COP gathering in Fiji that the climate issue is the security issue, arguing that the scale of the threat demands a comparable or greater financial response.
Kurum's intervention places him at the centre of an intensifying debate over how governments balance military budgets against climate finance. Nato allies agreed earlier this year to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP, a target driven by heightened geopolitical tensions. Kurum suggested that if such sums can be mobilised for defence, far larger amounts should be directed towards climate mitigation and adaptation, which he framed as an existential security challenge in its own right.
However, Kurum stopped short of committing to a renewed push for a fossil fuel phase-out at the upcoming talks. When asked whether countries should attempt to repeat the landmark agreement to transition away from fossil fuels, reached at COP28 in Dubai, he declined to give a firm answer. That hesitation is likely to prove contentious, given that fossil fuels are the primary driver of global heating and many nations want COP31 to build on previous commitments.
The pre-COP meeting in Fiji brought together Pacific island states that are among the most vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme weather. For these nations, the gap between climate finance promises and actual delivery is a matter of survival. Kurum's call for wealthier countries to spend much more on climate than on defence may resonate with smaller island states, but it is likely to meet resistance from major economies that have prioritised military spending amid shifting global alliances.
Turkey is set to host COP31 next month, and Kurum's remarks signal that the summit will grapple with familiar tensions: how to scale up climate finance, whether to accelerate the energy transition, and how to reconcile security priorities with environmental imperatives. His decision to hedge on fossil fuels suggests that negotiations in Turkey may not deliver the unambiguous language that campaigners and vulnerable countries are seeking.
The debate over defence versus climate spending is not new, but it has acquired fresh urgency as extreme weather events intensify and scientific warnings grow more dire. Nato's 5% target, agreed in the context of the war in Ukraine and broader geopolitical instability, has been criticised by climate advocates who argue that the same political will should be applied to decarbonisation. Kurum's comments amplify that critique, even as his ambiguity on fossil fuels leaves questions about how far Turkey will push for binding commitments.
With COP31 approaching, the summit's success will depend on whether wealthy nations are willing to translate rhetoric into financial pledges. Kurum's message is clear: climate change is not a secondary concern but a security threat that demands a proportional response. Whether that message translates into action remains to be seen when delegates gather in Turkey.