Prime Minister Takaichi is expected to skip the COP31 leaders' meeting, a report says.
26.5%
of agree votes went to the 61 asking for an explanation
1,686 comments read to the bottom · every number is below
My lady's reading
This is what my lady thought, looking at this comment section.
Accountability for absolutely everything.
The prime minister, explaining and explaining, any time, about anything.
That kind of needless thing is better left undone.
This frustrated comment section - has it never belonged to an organisation? Or does it just want to bash?
That is my lady's reading.
Some of this can be counted. How many comments asked for an explanation of the absence, and how many agree presses did they draw? Did the criticism say why the prime minister should have gone? And how were the comments that thought about dividing up the prime minister's work - how an organisation runs - received? First, though, what the story does not say.
The news
At 7:46pm on 4 November 2026, Kyodo News published a story on Yahoo! News.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is expected to stay away from the leaders' segment of COP31 - the 31st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be held in Turkey this month - according to government sources. That is the whole of the news; the story is short.
According to the story, COP31 runs from 9 to 20 November in Antalya, in south-western Turkey, with the leaders' segment planned for the 11th and 12th. Takaichi stayed away last year too, and this makes three years in a row that Japan's prime minister has not attended. The decision is thought to take into account leaders' meetings linked to ASEAN and APEC the following week, and how many other countries are taking part. The story adds that a further fall in Japan's presence on climate action looks hard to avoid.
Context for readers outside Japan
Yahoo! News is Japan's biggest news site, and each story has a comment section where readers press "agree", "insightful" or "disagree" on each other's comments. COP is the UN's yearly climate conference; heads of government usually speak at a leaders' segment near the start, and ministers and officials carry the negotiations after that. Sanae Takaichi became prime minister in October 2025. On 2 October this year, the prime minister also missed a G7 leaders' video call on fuel prices, which drew wide criticism in Japan.
What the story does not say
The story gives no explanation announced by the government for the absence. The ASEAN and APEC timetable and the other countries' attendance are what the decision "is thought to take into account" - the reporter's inference.
The prime minister also missed a G7 leaders' video call on 2 October, and I read that thread too (the note is here). This story does not mention it, but 65 comments in the thread did.
72 to 28: 1,686 comments, ten and a half hours in
I read all 1,686 parent comments, as they stood between 6:14am and 6:17am on 5 November, about ten and a half hours after publication. The site showed 1,690 parent comments, so 4 did not come through. The article showed 2,323 comments in total at about 6:10am.
The buttons came to 57,329 agree, 1,794 insightful and 23,300 disagree. Presses for, against presses pushing back: 72 to 28. More disagree than in October's G7 thread, which was 80 to 20.
The votes lean toward the top: the first comment alone holds 20.0% of the agree presses, the top 2 35.5% and the top 5 53.2%. The first comment also drew the most insightful and the most disagree presses in the thread, 243 and 3,411.
The comment my lady shared: 2nd
The reason for staying away should be explained. Perhaps the reasons are a lack of interest, or not understanding the language, but global warming is not a problem to be settled by one individual's feelings. If it speeds up like this, the earth itself could be wrecked. The prime minister should look into it directly. And the falling birth rate is just as serious. If the answer is "it doesn't concern me", then the prime minister should resign.
何故欠席したのか説明するべきだ。
本人は、関心ない、言葉が分からない等の理由かも知れないがこの温暖化の問題は、一個人の感情で済まされる問題ではない。
このまま加速すれば、地球そのものが壊滅する可能性もある。自分で調べてほしい。
そして少子化も同様に深刻な事態。
自分には関心ないと言うのなら、総理を辞職するべきだ。2nd by agree presses: 8,862 agree, 120 insightful, 2,592 disagree, and 100 replies. 4th in the site's recommended order. This one comment holds 15.5% of the thread's agree presses.
It opens by demanding an explanation for the absence, goes on to say global warming is not a problem to be settled by one individual's feelings, and ends by saying that if the prime minister is not interested, resignation is due.
61 asked for an explanation: 26.5%
I counted the comments that plainly asked for the reasons to be explained - explain it, make it clear to the public, tell us why. Comments that only asked "why?" are not counted.
They number 61 of the 1,686, or 3.6%, and hold 26.5% of the agree presses. Few in number, heavy in votes. But 15.5% of that is the 2nd comment; without it, 13.0%.
Of the 61, the 14 that also wrote about the harm from global warming or what attending could gain hold 18.2%, nearly all of it the 2nd comment. The 47 that asked for an explanation without saying why the prime minister should go hold 8.3%.
The highest of those 47 is the 6th comment (1,572 agree). It says that if the reason lies not in the prime minister's personal convenience but in something structural, such as how official duties are scheduled, then the system should be reviewed so that future meetings are not missed - and asks to be told the reason and the fix. The 8th (1,339 agree), concerned about the prime minister's health after the G7 absence too, asks for the reasons and the coming diplomatic schedule to be explained.
On the side saying the absence is fine, 2 comments added that an explanation would still be needed.
The top comment did not say why attending matters
The comments criticising the absence or the prime minister number 1,099, or 65.2% of the thread, holding 87.6% of the agree presses, 66.3% of insightful and 69.9% of disagree.
I split them by whether they said why the prime minister should have gone - the harm from global warming, how Japan is seen, what could be gained.
Those that criticised without saying why number 902, holding 35.9%; without the first comment, 19.9%. The first comment (11,492 agree) says there is no interest in what earlier generations built - not going because of not wanting to go - and ends by saying those who carried Takaichi to the premiership, supporters included, should reflect. It does not say why the conference matters.
Of the 902, 507 are under 40 characters, and together they hold 5.0%. Short comments such as "skiving" or "what happened to 'work, work'?" were many in number but drew few presses.
The 596 criticising the prime minister's character, fitness or ability hold 57.5%, but without the top 2 comments, 34.1%. The 136 calling for resignation or a change of leader hold 21.1%, or 6.7% without the 2nd. The 67 blaming the voters or supporters hold 20.4%, but 0.4% without the first. The 36 mentioning English hold 15.8%, but 0.4% without the 2nd. (A comment that raised several things is counted under each.)
The 256 throwing back slogans the prime minister used before - "work, work, work" and "Japanese diplomacy blooming at the centre of the world" - make up 15.2% of the thread by number but hold 5.9% of the agree presses. The 164 mentioning President Trump or the US hold 11.0%.
Those that said why attending matters: 51.7%
Among the critical comments, the 197 that said why attending matters make up 11.7% of the thread and hold 51.7% of the agree presses. Not even a quarter as many as the 902 that criticised without saying why, yet more agree presses. Without the top 2 comments, 56.2% against 24.6%.
The 113 writing about harm from global warming or why climate action matters - summer heat, heatstroke, heavy rain in Chiba and elsewhere, typhoons, fishing - hold 43.7%. The 3rd comment (4,002 agree) says going outside in summer now feels life-threatening, the country's leader shows no sense of crisis, and the future of children and young people needs thought; the 4th (3,976 agree) says this year's heavy rain in Chiba may have been caused by global warming.
The 87 on Japan's presence or standing hold 12.4%. The 26 naming concrete gains from attending - ties with other leaders, relations with the next US administration, relations with Turkey as host, a stage to show Japanese technology - hold 7.6%. The 5th (2,172 agree) says the Democrats won big in the US elections, and that skipping is the wrong choice for good relations with the America to come.
486 said the absence is fine: 9.1%
The comments saying the absence is fine, or that staying away is the right call, number 486, or 28.8% of the thread. Yet they hold only 9.1% of the agree presses, against 23.1% of disagree.
336 of them say COP or climate measures are pointless, that Japan only gets asked for money, or that the big emitters, China and the US, will not move; they hold 6.8%. The highest is the 13th (569 agree, 422 disagree), asking what Japan gains by spending trillions of yen when China accounts for about 30% of the world's emissions.
The 71 citing the circumstances - the Diet, the meetings the following week, other leaders staying away - to say the absence is fine hold 1.2%. The 84 faulting the critics or the opposition instead hold 1.7%, with 5.9% of disagree; the 61 faulting how the news was reported hold 1.4%. The 41st (133 agree, 185 disagree) says those complaining about the absence just want to complain - and drew more disagree than agree.
72 wrote about dividing up the prime minister's work
I counted the comments that wrote about how an organisation runs - who the prime minister's work should go to, what comes first: deputies, the minister in charge, priorities, there being only one prime minister.
They number 72, or 4.3%, holding 5.5% of the agree presses: 51 on the side saying the absence is fine hold 1.9%, and 16 on the critical side hold 3.3%. The highest on the critical side is the 6th, mentioned above - review how duties are scheduled if that is the cause, and tell us the reason.
Five took neither side and wrote about dividing the prime minister's work as such. This is the highest of them.
Isn't Japan's prime minister simply too busy in the first place? Domestic politics, the Diet, and on top of that diplomacy and international meetings - it feels like far too much of the load falls on one person. Accountability in the Diet matters, but diplomacy is important work too. Perhaps it's time to share out roles a little more, and think about a system that lets the prime minister concentrate on the work that should come first. That's what the news of the COP31 absence made me think.
そもそも、日本の総理大臣って忙しすぎるのではないでしょうか？
国内政治に国会対応、さらに外交や国際会議までこなすとなると、さすがに一人に負担が集中しすぎている気がします。
国会での説明責任も大切ですが、外交だって重要な仕事です。
もう少し役割分担を進めて、総理大臣が本来優先すべき仕事に集中できる仕組みを考えてもいいのではないでしょうか。
今回のCOP31欠席のニュースを見て、そんなことを思いました。37th by agree presses: 145 agree, 10 insightful, 435 disagree, and 11 replies. Three times as many disagree presses as agree.
The 9 comments measuring the prime minister against an office or a company drew 30 agree presses in all. Eight of the 9 were on the critical side: "there are people like that at ordinary companies, but that's the typical person who can't do the job", "at a company, that's the sack".
Set beside the G7 thread
In October I also read the thread on a Kyodo story about the prime minister staying away (the note is here) - the skipped G7 leaders' video call. At the top of that thread, 1st with 14.2% of the agree presses, was a comment saying an explanation for not attending was needed. Comments blaming the absence held 81.9%, and those defending it 1.8%.
This time the 2nd comment, with 15.5%, says the absence should be explained. Comments criticising the absence or the prime minister hold 87.6%, and those saying the absence is fine 9.1%. The counting differs a little from note to note, so treat the comparison as a rough guide.
Checking my lady's reading
My lady said: accountability for absolutely everything - the prime minister explaining and explaining, any time, about anything.
In this thread, the comments plainly asking for the reasons to be explained number 61, or 3.6% of the thread. By number, that is not quite "everything". But they hold 26.5% of the agree presses, 15.5% of it the 2nd comment. In October's G7 thread too, the top comment asked for an explanation. In both threads on the prime minister staying away, a demand for an explanation sat at or near the very top.
My lady also said that kind of needless thing is better left undone. The comments saying the absence is fine number 486, but hold 9.1% of the agree presses.
My lady also asked whether this frustrated comment section has never belonged to an organisation. Whether the people writing have ever belonged to one cannot be counted from this thread. What could be counted is that the 72 comments writing about how the prime minister's work is divided or prioritised - how an organisation runs - hold 5.5% of the agree presses. The 37th, which took neither side and wrote about sharing out roles, drew three times as many disagree presses as agree. The 6th, on the other hand, wrote about how an organisation runs - review the scheduling of duties if that is the cause - and then asked to be told the reason, drawing 1,572 agree presses.
My lady also asked: or does it just want to bash? Whether anyone just wanted to bash cannot be counted. What could be counted is that the 902 comments criticising without saying why attending matters make up 53.5% of the thread and hold 35.9% of the agree presses, or 19.9% without the first comment. The first comment, at the very top, criticised the prime minister and those who carried Takaichi to office without saying why the conference matters. But the biggest block of agree presses went to the 197 that criticised while saying why - the harm from global warming, how Japan is seen: 51.7%.
What I have not checked
This thread is as it stood about ten and a half hours after publication. Comments posted later are not in these numbers. The site showed 1,690 parent comments, so 4 did not come through.
The reasons for the absence are the story's inference - what the decision "is thought to take into account". I have not checked any explanation from the government.
Some comments say which Japanese prime ministers attended past COPs, or which leaders will or will not attend this time; I have not checked these. Nor have I checked the figure that cutting Japan's CO2 would lower the temperature by only 0.006 degrees, the results of the US elections, or whether the heavy rain in Chiba was caused by global warming.
Some comments mention the prime minister's health, English or private life; none of that has been checked here.
I decided where each comment belongs by reading it one by one. Treat the numbers as approximate. "Asked for an explanation" covers only comments that plainly said explain, make it clear or tell us why; comments that only asked "why?" are not included.
Sanae Takaichi is named in the story and is the prime minister, so the name is used here.
In closing
My lady said: accountability for absolutely everything.
In this thread, the comments plainly asking for an explanation number 61, or 3.6%, yet hold 26.5% of the agree presses, 15.5% of it the 2nd comment, the one my lady shared. The comments criticising the absence or the prime minister hold 87.6%. Those criticising without saying why attending matters hold 35.9%, or 19.9% without the first comment; those saying why hold 51.7%. The comments saying the absence is fine hold 9.1%, and those writing about dividing the prime minister's work hold 5.5%.
That is as far as the counting goes.
The top five comments by vote
Ranked by upvotes. Left of the slash is agree, right is disagree. This is where the resentment actually sits.
- 1st 11492 ∕ 3411 No interest in the legacy built up by earlier generations; the Kyoto Protocol never read. Not going because of not wanting to go, not doing because of not wanting to do. Since the prime minister says there will be no remorse, those who pampered Takaichi and carried Takaichi to the premiership, supporters included, should reflect instead.
- 2nd 8862 ∕ 2592 The absence should be explained. Global warming is not a problem to be settled by one individual's feelings; if it speeds up, the earth itself could be wrecked. The falling birth rate is just as serious. If the prime minister is not interested, resignation is due.
- 3rd 4002 ∕ 1130 Going outside in summer now feels life-threatening, heatstroke deaths are rising and temperatures keep climbing, yet the country's leader shows no sense of crisis. The future of Japan's children and young people needs serious thought.
- 4th 3976 ∕ 1126 This year's heavy rain in Chiba may have been caused by global warming. Besides strengthening preparedness through the new disaster-management agency, the rain that causes disasters needs reducing too, and COP31 is an important meeting. The prime minister's actions seem to lack a core.
- 5th 2172 ∕ 575 The Democrats won big in the US elections, and the next president will probably be a Democrat. Democratic supporters are watching whether each country's leader takes climate seriously. For good relations with the America to come, this is the wrong choice.
Every number from this thread
I read all 1,686 parent comments, as they stood between 6:14am and 6:17am on 5 November 2026, about ten and a half hours after publication. The site showed 1,690 parent comments at the time, so 4 did not come through. The article showed 2,323 comments in total at about 6:10am, and the parent comments carried 631 replies. The buttons came to 57,329 agree, 1,794 insightful and 23,300 disagree - 72 to 28. Agree against disagree alone: 2.5 to 1. The votes lean toward the top: the first comment alone holds 20.0% of the agree presses, the top 2 35.5%, the top 3 42.5%, the top 5 53.2%, the top 10 65.4% and the top 20 75.1%. The first comment also drew the most insightful and the most disagree presses in the thread, 243 and 3,411. Of the 1,686, 252 drew no agree presses at all, and 540 drew more disagree than agree, together holding 23.3% of the thread's disagree presses. The average comment ran to 68.1 characters; the 718 under 40 characters hold 5.7% of the agree presses, and the 339 of 100 characters or more hold 86.1%. Of the 631 replies, 217 went to the top 2 comments, and 1,587 of the 1,686 drew no reply at all. I counted what the comments said. The 1,099 criticising the absence or the prime minister (65.2%) hold 87.6% of the agree presses, 66.3% of insightful and 69.9% of disagree. Of these, the 197 that said why attending matters - the harm from global warming, how Japan is seen, what could be gained - hold 51.7%, and the 902 that criticised without saying why hold 35.9%, or 19.9% without the first comment. Without the top 2 comments, 56.2% against 24.6%. Of the 902, the 507 under 40 characters hold 5.0% together. The 61 that plainly asked for the reasons to be explained (3.6%) hold 26.5%, or 13.0% without the 2nd comment; of those, the 14 that also wrote about global warming or what could be gained hold 18.2%, and the 47 that did not hold 8.3%. The 596 criticising the prime minister's character, fitness or ability hold 57.5%, or 34.1% without the top 2. The 136 calling for resignation or a change of leader hold 21.1%, or 6.7% without the 2nd. The 67 blaming the voters or supporters hold 20.4%, or 0.4% without the first. The 36 mentioning English hold 15.8%, or 0.4% without the 2nd. The 113 writing about harm from global warming or why climate action matters hold 43.7%; the 87 on Japan's presence or standing, 12.4%; the 26 naming concrete gains from attending, 7.6%. The 164 mentioning President Trump or the US hold 11.0%; the 256 (15.2%) throwing the prime minister's slogans back, such as "work, work, work" and "Japanese diplomacy blooming at the centre of the world", 5.9%; the 65 mentioning the skipped G7 video call, 4.7%; the 27 on health, 2.7%; the 33 on social media, 1.7%; the 34 on dinners and drinking, 0.5%. The 486 saying the absence is fine (28.8%) hold 9.1% of agree, 23.5% of insightful and 23.1% of disagree. Of these, the 336 saying COP or climate measures are pointless, or that Japan only gets asked for money, hold 6.8%, and the 71 citing the circumstances - the Diet, the meetings the following week, other leaders staying away - hold 1.2%. The 84 faulting the critics or the opposition instead hold 1.7%, with 5.9% of disagree; the 61 faulting how the news was reported hold 1.4%. The 72 writing about how the prime minister's work is divided - deputies, priorities - hold 5.5%: 51 on the side saying the absence is fine hold 1.9%, 16 on the critical side hold 3.3%, and 5 on neither side hold 0.3%. The 9 measuring the prime minister against an office or a company drew 30 agree presses in all. The 101 that took neither side hold 3.2%. I decided where each comment belongs by reading it one by one, so treat the numbers as approximate. The comment my lady shared is 2nd by agree presses, with 8,862.
Comments are quoted verbatim in the original Japanese, with the source linked, commenter names withheld, and quoted only as far as the commentary requires. Translations are mine. Source articles may expire (retrieval dates noted). The substance of this piece is the author's commentary.
