Bitter disappointment, but not for me
Australia dropping our bid for COP31 feels like a betrayal of our Pacific neighbors
Please indulge me, as today has been a disappointment.
You see, as an Aussie đŠđș , I was deeply disappointed by Australiaâs decision to step back from hosting COP31 â not for our sake (sorry, Adelaide), but for our friends in the Pacific nations who have done more than any other region to push the world toward real climate action.
What actually happened with Australiaâs bid?
Australia originally put forward a joint proposal with Pacific island nations to host COP31 climate talks in 2026. The idea was simple: Australia would provide the infrastructure, but the Pacific would host in partnership, elevating the voices of countries most affected by climate change.
But someone else also wanted to host - TĂŒrkiye.
Even though 26 of the 28 members of our group supported Australia as the host, TĂŒrkiye refused to budge.
A few hours ago at COP31 in Brazil, Australia dropped its bid to host⊠mere hours before the meeting would have reverted to COP Headquarters in Bonn, Germany.
TL;DR: Australia and the Pacific lost a rare chance to host the worldâs climate negotiations.
Australia lost the bid, but the Pacific will suffer the greatest loss. Yes, there will be a pre-COP event in the Pacific, and yes, theyâll have some influence. But it still feels like theyâre being handed the scraps, yet again.
Remember: the Pacific are the global leaders on climate action, especially the fight for 1.5°C, because they have a LOT to lose! Pacific islands like Fiji, Kirabati, and Papua New Guinea are dealing with severe and disproportionate impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, ocean warming, and extreme weather events. Climate change threatens the very existence of these nations and their cultures.
Consider Tuvalu, often cited as the nation most impacted by climate change. The entire nation is very low lying - itâs highest point is only about 4.6 meters (15 feet) above sea level! Imagine how vulnerable that is (my house is taller than Tuvalu)! According to modelling, 50% of its capital atoll will be underwater or uninhabitable within the next 25 years. The country is tiny - thereâs nowhere inland for the population to move. Theyâre already facing salt-water flooding into their freshwater systems which is making agriculture impossible.
And yet, countries like Tuvalu are repeatedly excluded from decisions about where these global discussions happen. It feels fundamentally wrong to see yet another COP handed to a country with âauthoritarian tendencies and a poor human rights recordâ, instead of to those most affected and most determined to lead.
Why Australiaâs retreat was understandable â and why TĂŒrkiyeâs move wasnât
Letâs be brutally honest: Australiaâs decision to stop fighting for COP31 wasnât heroic, but it was strategically understandable. Under UN rules, the conference host has to be agreed by consensus. With TĂŒrkiye refusing to step aside, the stalemate risked dragging on until the default option kicked in, sending COP31 to Bonn, Germany. That would have been a disaster for the Pacific.
Another COP held in Europe, again, on wealthy soil, would have erased the whole reason the Pacific backed Australia in the first place: to finally bring the worldâs biggest climate meeting to the region most at risk. Australia faced an impossible choice: keep battling TĂŒrkiye and watch the conference bounce straight back to Europe, or step away and at least secure some Pacific influence within the presidency.
So yes, Australia blinked. But it blinked because the alternative was locking the Pacific out entirely.
TĂŒrkiye, on the other hand, didnât just push harder â it pushed against the Pacific. Instead of recognising the moral weight of a region literally drowning under climate policy failures, TĂŒrkiye muscled through for its own political prestige. It demanded the worldâs stage while offering nothing to the small nations who have fought harder, suffered more, and led more bravely than any G20 giant ever has.
Make no mistake: Australia stepped back to prevent COP31 landing in Bonn. TĂŒrkiye pressed forward knowing full well it would take the conference away from the Pacific, not with it. Thatâs not diplomacy.
And while Australia will still hold the presidency, thereby shaping some of the negotiations, it wonât change the optics: the region fighting hardest for 1.5°C just got shoved aside by a country chasing influence, not climate justice.
The Pacific deserves leadership, not crumbs.
A system built to fail the vulnerable
The bitter irony is that none of this comes down to who had the stronger case â it comes down to how the UN works. COP decisions are made by consensus, not by majority vote. That means it doesnât matter if nearly every nation wanted the Pacific to lead. If even one country refuses to step aside, progress stops. One holdout can override hundreds of nations - and often does!
At COP26, almost every country supported phasing out coal. At the very last minute, India refused to agree, and because COP runs on consensus, the wording was watered down from âphase outâ to âphase downâ (a phrase that ultimately has no meaning at all).
At COP27, a majority of nations pushed for strong language on ending fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia blocked it, so the final text contained no commitment at all.
In practice, consensus is supposed to protect unity. In reality, it rewards the countries most willing to dig in their heels. It gives disproportionate power to nations with political ambitions to flex or money to make, and it punishes those acting in good faith - like the Pacific.
When the rules allow the biggest threats to climate progress to block the people most affected by it, the outcome isnât cooperation. Itâs compromise at the point of collapse. And too often, as COP31 shows, the end result is NOT the fairest option, itâs just the one that keeps the machine moving.
Until the UN recognises the urgent need for action and moves away from consensus, weâll keep watching the same story unfold: those who lead on climate wonât lead the climate talks.
A big thank you to Rebecca Rhodes for suggesting this rant article.