In the coastal city of Santa Marta, nestled between the Caribbean Sea and the towering Sierra Nevada mountains, a quiet but ambitious experiment in global climate leadership is taking shape. Here, ministers from around 50 countries have gathered with a shared goal that once seemed politically impossible: figuring out how to move beyond fossil fuels – not in theory, but in practice. At the center of this effort is Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, whose presidency has been defined by an unusually blunt message for a leader of an oil-producing nation. Since taking office in 2022, Petro has framed fossil fuels not just as an environmental issue, but as a moral one. In speeches that have drawn both applause and criticism, he has compared oil and coal to harmful addictions, asking the provocative question: what is more toxic for humanity – cocaine, coal, or petroleum? It’s a striking line, especially in a country like Colombia, where oil and coal remain pillars of the economy. Despite Petro’s rhetoric and policy efforts, fossil fuels still account for roughly 4% of GDP and nearly 30% of exports. That tension – between ambition and economic reality – defines Colombia’s current energy transition.
The Santa Marta summit did not emerge in a vacuum. It reflects growing frustration with the slow pace of international climate negotiations, particularly under frameworks like the COP28. While that summit marked a symbolic shift – acknowledging for the first time the need to transition away from fossil fuels – progress since then has been limited. Global climate talks operate by consensus, which often means that major oil- and gas-producing countries can stall or dilute meaningful commitments. The result has been a kind of diplomatic gridlock. In response, Colombia is attempting something different: bringing together a coalition of countries willing to move faster and focus on concrete solutions rather than abstract commitments. In Santa Marta, the debate is no longer about whether to leave fossil fuels behind. Instead, it’s about how to do it – and how quickly.
Petro’s vision is bold, especially given Colombia’s economic structure. Shortly after taking office, his government halted new oil exploration contracts, increased taxes on hydrocarbons, and promoted policies designed to shift the country’s identity from an extractive economy to one rooted in biodiversity and renewable energy. One of the most symbolic moves came in 2025, when Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres declared the Colombian Amazon free from extractive industries. The government has also pushed to ban hydraulic fracturing, though that effort has sparked an ongoing political battle in Congress.
At the same time, Colombia has invested heavily in renewable energy. Programs like “Colombia Solar” aim to install solar panels across the country, particularly in the sun-rich Caribbean region. With a budget of $2 billion through 2030, the initiative reflects a broader push to diversify the energy mix. The results, at least on paper, are encouraging. Between 2022 and 2026, the share of solar and wind energy in Colombia’s energy mix rose from just 2% to 17%. In 2025, solar energy generation surpassed coal for the first time – a milestone that government officials have celebrated as a turning point. There are also signs of economic diversification. Revenue from coffee exports, for example, has recently exceeded that from coal, hinting at a possible shift in the country’s export structure.
Yet beneath these achievements lies a more complicated reality. Experts caution that Colombia is still far from a true energy transition. Oil remains a major source of state revenue – bringing in billions of dollars annually – and plays a crucial role in stabilizing public finances. Economists argue that in a country with a significant budget deficit, abandoning fossil fuels too quickly could create serious fiscal challenges. As one analyst put it, oil is still “a motor of the Colombian economy”, and removing it without a fully developed alternative could do more harm than good. Energy specialists also emphasize that transitions of this scale take time – often decades. Moving away from fossil fuels is not just about stopping exploration; it requires building new infrastructure, retraining workers, and ensuring that alternative industries can sustain economic growth. The contrast is visible on the ground. Just 200 kilometers from Santa Marta lies the Cerrejón mine, one of the largest open-pit coal mines in the world, operated by the multinational Glencore. The mine has long been criticized for its environmental and social impacts, yet it continues to operate – serving as a reminder of how deeply embedded fossil fuels remain in Colombia’s economy.
If Petro’s domestic agenda is constrained by economic realities, his international strategy is far more expansive. By hosting the Santa Marta summit, he is positioning Colombia as a leader in what could become a new phase of climate diplomacy. In 2023, Colombia became the first non-island, oil-producing country to support the proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty – an initiative backed by the European Parliament, the World Health Organization, and numerous cities worldwide. The treaty aims to create a global framework for phasing out fossil fuel production, much like existing agreements on nuclear weapons. Petro has also been outspoken about the failures of recent climate talks, including the COP30 in Brazil, where negotiations over fossil fuels once again stalled. The Santa Marta meeting, then, is more than just a conference – it’s an attempt to break the deadlock. By gathering like-minded countries, Colombia hopes to lay the groundwork for new mechanisms to regulate or limit fossil fuel production globally.
Whether this effort will succeed remains uncertain. The economic and political obstacles are significant, both within Colombia and internationally. But the summit signals a shift in tone: from cautious negotiation to more assertive action. As Petro’s presidency approaches its end, the question is not whether Colombia has fully transitioned away from fossil fuels – it clearly has not. The real question is whether it has changed the terms of the debate.
Comments