The New Language of Climate in New York

Climate was discussed in New York last week. But this time, the conversation moved beyond its customary frame. Energy and electrification, finance and clean growth, industry and supply chains, technology and artificial intelligence, cities, transport, nature… The common word was “implementation.” For Türkiye, which will host COP31 in November, New York became one of the biggest stages before Antalya.

Türkiye did not merely issue an invitation to COP31 in New York. COP31 President Murat Kurum presented at the United Nations, in detail and together with its implementation tools, the Action Agenda whose framework he first outlined in Bonn in June. The agenda is built around 10 priority themes, 6 global targets, 11 initiatives and 13 supporting outcomes. The themes range from zero waste and methane to clean energy and electrification, from food security to green industrialisation, from oceans to resilient cities, health and youth participation.

These headings were also accompanied by numbers:

- Raising electricity’s share of global final energy consumption to 35 percent by 2035,

- Reducing energy-use intensity in buildings by at least 25 percent,

- Increasing the global circular material use rate to at least 15 percent,

- Preventing half of the projected increase in municipal waste.

According to the COP31 Presidency, their combined emissions-reduction potential reaches 8.5–10 billion tonnes of CO₂ by 2035.

Seen this way, the phrase “Implementation COP” takes on more substance.

35 by 35: Türkiye’s proposed global target

Electrification sits at the centre of the agenda. A special study prepared by the International Energy Agency (IEA) at the request of Türkiye and Australia estimates that electricity currently accounts for roughly 23 percent of global final energy consumption. If existing and economically viable technologies are deployed more rapidly, that share could reach 33 percent by 2035. Türkiye’s proposed 35 percent target is therefore, in the IEA’s words, “within reach.”

The meaning of electrification beyond climate policy is also critical. Electric vehicles, heat pumps, electrified industrial processes, renewable energy, storage and grid investment can simultaneously reduce energy imports, improve efficiency and cut emissions. According to the IEA, reaching the 35 percent target would reduce the fuel bills of energy-importing countries by around $400 billion a year in 2035. At the higher prices caused by the crisis in the Middle East, those savings exceed $500 billion. The significance for Türkiye, which imports most of its energy, is clear.

At the High-Level Energy Transition Dialogue organised in New York by the IEA and the COP31 Presidency, the issue was accordingly discussed not only through climate, but through energy security and competitiveness. The subjects on the table were the rapid expansion of grids and storage, and access to finance for developing economies.

COP31 will also be a showcase for Türkiye’s own energy vision. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Alparslan Bayraktar says Türkiye will set out its vision and concrete targets in this field during the COP31 process. How the proposed global electrification target of 35 percent is reflected in Türkiye’s own energy plan will be one of the first tests of being an “Implementation COP.”

Climate and artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence was the second field Türkiye brought to the fore in New York. With the “Antalya AI Commitment,” the COP31 Presidency is preparing to bring AI’s climate impact onto the COP agenda. It will be accompanied by an “AI for Clean Tech” initiative. The aim is to use AI in climate solutions while also making the technology’s own energy and resource footprint visible.

This touches one of the defining contradictions of the coming years. We expect AI to optimise energy systems, manage grids, discover new materials and improve climate models. Yet the data centres that run the same AI demand ever more electricity and infrastructure.

The question is therefore no longer only, “What can AI do for the climate?” There is another: “How will we decarbonise AI itself?” Antalya could bring both questions to the same table.

An investment bridge for projects

The third major development in New York concerned finance. The first five pilot countries for Türkiye’s Climate Implementation Bridge (BRIDGE), announced in Istanbul and to be run together with the UN Development Programme (UNDP), were named: Ethiopia, Fiji, Indonesia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

The idea is simple but important. Countries have climate plans. Financial institutions are willing to invest. What is missing between them is a sufficient number of investable, financially structured projects.

BRIDGE is trying to enter precisely this gap: turning national climate and development targets into finance-ready project portfolios and developing countries’ capacity to do so.

At the same time, Türkiye launched the Sustainable Urban Resilience Financing Facility (SURFF) under the leadership of İLBANK, together with UN-Habitat and the World Bank. Its purpose is similar: to close the distance between national climate targets and implementable investment projects in cities. SURFF will work across three pillars: a country platform connecting cities’ resilience priorities with project preparation and financing; a centre of excellence developing tools and sharing experience; and an international dialogue platform. The model draws on the reconstruction experience in the earthquake region.

Istanbul had discussed the “finance chasm.” In New York, the conversation began to turn to what would cross the bridge.

The private sector is also at the table

For Türkiye, perhaps one of the most important aspects of New York was the visibility of the private sector.

The COP31 Business Forum New York Dialogue was co-hosted by TOBB, the COP31 Private Sector Envoy, and Bloomberg. Ali Y. Koç, Vice Chair of Koç Holding; Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the IEA; Makhtar Diop, Managing Director of the IFC; and John Denton, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce, came together at the panel “The Private Sector’s Response to the COP31 Action Agenda.”

This should not be seen as an ordinary business event. Seven working groups with more than 700 members held their second in-person meetings in New York under the COP31 Business Forum. An Advisory Board made up of global business leaders also convened there for the first time. The working groups’ conclusions will be announced at the COP31 Business and Investment Summit in Antalya on 12–13 November. For the first time in COP history, that summit will coincide with the Leaders’ Summit, allowing business recommendations to be presented directly to heads of state and government.

TOBB President Rifat Hisarcıklıoğlu put it plainly: “Governments sign agreements; business implements them.”

For COP31, the second half of that sentence may matter more than the first. A government can announce a 2035 electrification target. But the electric car is produced, the factory process changed, the battery financed, the solar and wind plant built, the building transformed, the supplier replaced and all of it funded not by the state alone. A climate target ultimately has to become an investment decision.

Why Koç’s message in New York matters

Koç Holding’s position here is particularly noteworthy. The group is COP31’s “Global Business Partner.” It operates in more than 60 countries, exports to more than 155, and earns over 95 percent of its revenue from sectors at the direct centre of the transition, including energy, automotive, consumer durables and finance.

What Koç Holding says about the climate transition therefore describes more than one group’s sustainability policy. It also makes visible some of the fundamental issues in the transformation of Turkish industry.

One of the most striking points made in New York by Koç Holding Vice Chair Ali Y. Koç concerned the cost of capital. He noted that financing costs stand at 5–6 percent in developed countries, but can be two or three times higher, with shorter maturities, in developing countries. His conclusion was important: companies now compete not only with rival companies, but with the economic systems behind them.

This is one of the most significant shifts in the climate debate. If two companies make the same transition investment, but one accesses long-term finance at 5–6 percent while the other borrows at two or three times the cost and over a shorter term, competition cannot be explained by corporate efficiency alone. The cost of capital, public incentives and climate regulation also become part of the competitive landscape. Climate policy thus ceases to be only environmental policy; it becomes industrial, financial and ultimately competition policy.

Installed capacity and generated electricity are not the same

The discussions in New York also exposed another important point in Türkiye’s energy transition.

According to data from the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Türkiye’s total installed electricity capacity reached 126.9 GW as of August 2026. Hydropower accounts for 25.5 percent, solar 22 percent, wind 12.2 percent and geothermal 1.4 percent. Together, these four renewable sources represent roughly 61 percent of installed capacity.

But installed capacity and electricity generation are not the same thing. Installed capacity shows what plants can produce under optimal conditions; solar does not generate at night, and wind does not generate when the air is still. In 2025 electricity generation, coal accounted for 33.6 percent and natural gas for 23 percent. Hydropower supplied 15.8 percent, wind 10.9 percent, solar 10.5 percent and geothermal 3.2 percent. Those four renewable sources together accounted for roughly 40.4 percent.

The difference reveals the transition’s new bottleneck. Building power plants alone is not enough. Grids, storage, flexibility and electrification are required. It is no coincidence that the IEA study presented in New York placed particular emphasis on grids and storage.

Climate risk is now balance-sheet risk

Water was the subject addressed by Koç Holding CEO Levent Çakıroğlu at another session in New York.

At the World Economic Forum Centre for Nature and Climate’s “Future of the Blue Economy” panel, Çakıroğlu said Koç Group views water resilience as a strategic business priority and part of climate adaptation.

Over the past six years, the group has reduced water withdrawals by 24 percent and reuses or recycles 64 percent of the water used in its operations. Çakıroğlu also stressed that the objective is not limited to the group’s own factories: “By leveraging technology, innovation and financing opportunities, we aim to strengthen the resilience of our broader ecosystem.”

The message behind this performance is equally important. Water is no longer merely an environmental indicator. It is a question of whether a factory can operate, the resilience of a supply chain, production costs and the feasibility of an investment decision. The emphasis on the “ecosystem” is meaningful for this reason. Water saved in one company’s own facility is of little use if a supplier’s factory stops because of drought. Resilience is only as strong as the weakest link in the value chain.

In other words, climate risk has clearly ceased to be a risk outside the balance sheet.

The question left between New York and Antalya

The climate agenda is moving from an economy of commitments to an economy of implementation. The weight of the actors is changing accordingly. The investor sits beside the diplomat, the energy company beside the environment minister, and the CFO beside the sustainability executive. The emissions target is now accompanied by the cost of capital, grid capacity, storage, return on investment and competitiveness.

That is why it would be far too narrow to read the presence of Koç Holding and other private-sector actors in New York simply as “Turkish companies attended Climate Week.” The real news is not that companies were there, but that climate targets have already entered their business processes and investment decisions as a factor in economic competition.

Six weeks before Antalya, Türkiye therefore has an opportunity. If COP31 is truly to be an “Implementation COP,” its success should not be measured only by the number of pledges announced. More decisive questions will be how many climate targets became projects, how many projects secured financing, what changed in companies’ investment decisions, and how much transformation and resilience those changes produced.

These should be Antalya’s measures. New York was the rehearsal. In Antalya, it will no longer be words but implementation that is held to account.