I still remember hearing the name COP for the first time during my school days. Back then, I understood it in very simple terms: a global effort to save the environment. And for me, that mostly meant planting as many trees as possible.

When I reached university, I also participated in several programmes related to COP8 in Delhi as an NSS (National Service Scheme) volunteer. Even then, my perception of COP did not change much. To me, COP was still essentially a global effort to plant trees and protect the environment.

Back then, in 2005, India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act came into force. Around that time, I began to notice a contradiction. On the one hand, there were campaigns to plant thousands of trees; on the other, in the name of development, especially in cities like Delhi, trees were being cut down.

I decided to file an RTI (Right to Information) request about this. The information I received was surprising even to me, and it later made headlines in major newspapers. It turned out that in just five years, more than 50,000 trees had been cut down in Delhi.

Perhaps this was when my way of looking at the environment began to change. Planting trees is certainly important, but the question is not simply how many trees are planted. We also need to ask: How many trees have been cut down? Where were they cut down, and where were they planted instead? The bigger question is, what are we actually doing to save the world we live in?

After coming to Türkiye, and especially after the announcement that Türkiye is hosting COP31, I began to understand that COP is not just about the environment, but also about the economy, energy, investment and national security.

But along with this understanding, one question kept coming back to me: What has the world actually achieved after 30 COPs? Every year, big promises are made, new goals are set, and world leaders speak about the seriousness of the climate crisis. But how much of an impact have these promises actually had on the ground?

The images of the recent flash floods in Nepal made this question even more pressing. These were not just images in the news for me. I had been to these places before. At the same time, my own district of West Champaran in India, which borders the same region of Nepal, was under a climate alert. In such a situation, climate change is no longer a distant global debate. It becomes a question of our homes, our cities and our daily lives.

Perhaps that is why the Climate Finance Summit at the Istanbul Finance Center (IFC) held on Sept. 4 was not just another conference for me. It was the first time I participated in a major event related to COP31.

As I walked from Halkalı to the Istanbul Finance Center in Ümraniye, I was thinking that perhaps not many people would attend the event, as is often the case with conferences focused on the environment and climate change. But when I arrived, I realized that my guess was completely wrong. I had not expected to see such strong interest in a topic like climate finance. Yet, the auditorium was so crowded that it was difficult even to find a place to stand at the back.

At the front, COP31 president-designate and Türkiye’s minister of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Murat Kurum, was speaking, while people in the hall listened with full attention. Standing at the back, I found it interesting to watch the packed audience quietly taking notes of his remarks and, at times, applauding when he made an important point.

The first session ended shortly afterward. We then moved to another hall for the press conference. By the end of it, I felt that I might never be able to look at COP in quite the same way again.

At the press conference, Murat Kurum made it clear that Türkiye wants governments around the world to treat climate change with the same seriousness and urgency as they treat national defense. On this occasion, he proposed an ambitious goal: persuading every country in the world to allocate resources equivalent to at least 5% of its GDP to climate security. He also suggested that this share may need to increase further in the future, potentially reaching 7% or even 10%.

But there was one thing Murat Kurum said that made me stop and think again: If so many countries around the world are willing to increase spending on defense and security, then why can’t the same political and financial priority be given to protecting the world we live in?

Then he raised a pertinent question: "If we do not have a safe world to live in in the future, what will be the point of the money we spend defending our countries?”

Perhaps this is where the climate change debate moves beyond ecology and into the realms of politics and security. Security is not just about borders, armies and weapons. If our water is not safe, our cities are left helpless in the face of extreme heat and floods, our food systems come under pressure, and there is no longer a livable environment for future generations, then our understanding of security is incomplete.

Another point he made gave this debate a deeply human meaning. According to him, the real question is not simply about defending countries, but about leaving future generations a world where life is possible, and where that life can itself be protected.

I was just thinking of asking the question: COPs have been held before, but what has actually been achieved through them? But a journalist had already asked it. The answer was short and clear: "Until now, we have mostly been talking about the issues. We have diagnosed the problems; now we have to work on the treatment. When we start working toward the targets, the results will definitely come.”

I was quite impressed by the answer, but the question in my mind was not over yet. If the problem has been diagnosed, what will the scale of the cure be now? The real test, perhaps, is whether the world can finally move beyond promises, declarations and targets.

Türkiye is now talking about a system that could help narrow the gap between governments’ climate pledges and the projects that require real investment. If that happens, COP31 will be more than just another global conference. It could become an attempt to turn the promises of previous conferences into practical plans and real investment.

However, the real test of this claim will come in November, when the time comes to turn those promises into action. One question remains: Will the world see Türkiye’s efforts develop into practical climate diplomacy, rather than remain just another diplomatic promise?

Hearing this promise certainly raises hope. But the experience of the past three decades forces us to ask another question: What is the guarantee that promises will turn into plans, and plans into real investment?

From that schoolboy to this journalist in Istanbul, my understanding of COP has changed a great deal. For me, COP is no longer just about planting trees. The fight to protect the environment is, in reality, a fight for our lives, our economies, our security and the future of generations to come.

The real question now is: What kind of world are we choosing to leave for future generations?

Perhaps the real success of COP31 will be measured by the day the world moves beyond promises and begins to take meaningful action. Because protecting the environment is not simply about saving the Earth. It is about saving our lives.