The annual climate summits attended by government officials and fossil fuel representatives have long been a farce. Lots of talking, followed by vows to finally do something meaningful about global warming although doing little of actual substance. The last one, held in Belém, Brazil, was particularly dispiriting with Saudi Arabia leading the petrostates seeking to block any meaningful progress and lobbyists attending in large numbers.
Could it be different? Dozens of national
governments believe the world could do better, and thus was born the
first Transitioning From Fossil Fuels conference, held from April 24 to
29 in Santa Marta, Colombia. The Netherlands and Colombia were the
co-conveners, a pairing presumably meant to represent diversity as the
Netherlands is a Global North country and an oil consumer whereas
Colombia is a Global South oil producer. In total, 57 countries
participated, representing one-third of global gross domestic product
and one-fifth of global fossil fuel production.
The conference was conceived after the
failure of participants at the most recent climate summit in Brazil
(COP30, shorthand for the 30th Conference of the Parties
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) to reach a
formal agreement on a “roadmap” from fossil fuels despite COP28 in 2023
ending with the world’s governments “encouraged” to “transition away” from
fossil fuels. (Not that optimism is called for given that COP28 also
promoted finance capital as a savior and “encouraged” is not the same as
“mandated.”)
Still, there were high hopes for the Santa
Marta Transitioning From Fossil Fuels conference by participants. “The
Conference is designed as a space for countries, subnational governments
and other stakeholders that recognize the need to implement a
transition away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable
manner, in line with climate goals and the best available science,” the event’s website declares.
Unlike the United Nations climate summits, reduced to inactivity due to
hostile governments and fossil fuel interests, the Santa Marta
conference sought to elevate voices normally unheard.
Conference organizers describe their intentions this way: “The objective of the Conference is to initiate a concrete process through which a coalition of committed countries, subnational governments, and relevant stakeholders can identify and advance enabling pathways to implement a progressive transition away from fossil fuels creating sustainable societies and economies. This process will be informed by the experience and perspectives of national and subnational governments, academia, Indigenous Peoples, Peoples of African Descent, peasants, civil society, workers, the private sector, and other key actors at different stages of the transition.” It is not a replacement for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), but rather “complementary” to the UNFCCC.
Along those lines, the convening
governments were more cautious in official statements than might have
been expected by the strong nature of the above statements. Colombia’s
Minister of Environment, Irene Vélez Torres, said,
“This will be a broad intergovernmental, multisectoral platform
complementary to the UNFCCC designed to identify legal, economic, and
social pathways that are necessary to make the phasing out of fossil
fuels.” The Netherlands Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Climate
Policy and Green Growth, Sophie Hermans, said,
“We must begin to materialize what this phase-out could look like and
start a concrete roadmap that allows us to incorporate the new and leave
the old behind.”
Assessing the transformations needed
What conclusions were drawn by conference
participants and what actions were taken? Mostly, participants expressed
determination to take meaningful action but to do so within existing
frameworks, and to see this conference as a beginning.
In the conference’s final statement,
progress toward transitioning from fossil fuels was noted, but “the
countries present in Santa Marta still have structural dependencies to
overcome, including fiscal dependencies, debt constraints, the
dependence of the financial architecture on fossil fuels and the need to
enable fossil fuels-free trade systems.” Fossil fuels were seen as part
of larger structures and not as a problem that can be isolated.
“Transitioning away from fossil fuels is more than replacing one energy
source with another. It requires broad economic transformation to
overcome structural dependencies, overcome debt constraints, expand
reliable energy access, and support diversified, resilient economies.
This must be planned with workers and communities, ensuring a transition
that is fair, rights-based, and delivers tangible benefits for
marginalized groups.”
Conference participants left with
commitments to a second conference in 2027, to be co-hosted by Ireland
and Tuvalu, and to coordinate with one another and with COP30
commitments to work toward “just transitions.” Among that work will be
to help countries develop realistic nationally determined contributions
(NDCs) and to make transitions from fossil fuels “people-centered and
territorially grounded” and “advancing energy sovereignty.” (NDCs are
national climate action plans by each country under the Paris Agreement,
which collectively are supposed to help meet the global goal of
limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and adapt to the
impacts of climate change. These NDCs are intended to be updated every
five years with increasingly higher ambition.)
The conference’s final statement went on to declare that, necessary to a just transition, is the “transform[ation of] the productive, territorial, and social conditions that have sustained fossil fuel dependence and associated vulnerabilities.” The conference called for an end to the under-taxation of fossil fuels, using sovereign investment funds to facilitate renewable energy development, thereby “help[ing] level the playing field for green investments and industrialization, ensuring that fiscal policy both reduces fossil fuel dependence and supports equitable development pathways.”
Financial policies, also, could be used to
leverage a faster transition to renewable energy sources, through
changes in taxation, credit and debt-relief policies. Governments were
called on to not only make needed alterations to financial and revenue
policies, but to “support the transformation of fossil-fuel dependent
regional economies to new industries while managing social, territorial,
and labour implications,” including subsidizing worker re-skilling,
protecting labor rights and emphasizing environmental restoration. As
part of this proposed process, governments are called on to organize the
phasing out of fossil fuels in a “managed, fair, and politically viable
way,” coordinated internationally in ways that develops “legitimacy and
trust” with community-led participation.
“Participants discussed that a key
prerequisite for transitioning away from fossil fuels are science as a
basis for informed transition planning, stronger international
cooperation and more effective governance frameworks. They recognized
that implementation remains insufficiently coordinated and
operationalized on this issue, and that governance gaps persist in
relation to fossil fuel production and use, finance, technology
transfer, and inclusive participation.” Stressing, however, that
conference participants would not be aloof from the existing UNFCCC
process, the final statement said participants would be “building on the
achievements of the Convention and the Paris Agreement and underlining
the central importance of established multilateral processes” in order
to “enhance linkages between UNFCCC and other relevant international
implementation platforms for complementary purposes, improved
coordination across relevant thematic areas, and continued political
momentum through high-level processes.” Their hope is that “Dialogue
platforms, joint initiative and requests to multilateral financial
institutions, technical assistance, and knowledge-sharing on the
financial and legal dimensions can significantly accelerate the
transition.”
We can talk, but will they listen?
The conference final statement is not
necessarily a dramatic change from the type of language and the promises
made at the United Nations climate summits. As part of the Santa Marta
conference, there was a “science pre-conference” attended by 400 global
academics, which included the launch of a new science panel intended to
provide analysis to help accelerate transitions from fossil fuels, reports Carbon Brief.
It certainly is good for scientific analysis to be made available, but
it could be noted that there are already large numbers of scientific
papers demonstrating the disastrous course for humanity should global
warming not be reversed soon, including papers issued through the UNFCCC
process itself, although watered down through political interference.
The “science pre-conference” did recommend serious courses of action. Among the actions recommended are
“Take immediate measures to prevent future emissions. Ban new fossil
infrastructure, mandate deep methane cuts, accelerate electrification
and inscribe fossil-fuel phase-down targets in NDCs and clean-energy
pathways support to low and middle income countries.” This report
explicitly advocates “phasing down” fossil fuels rather than the tepid
“transition away from fossil fuels” language of COP28. Demonstrating
seriousness, the scientists’ report rejected natural gas as a so-called
transition fuel and rejected carbon capture and storage as unfeasible at
necessary scales.
The conference appears to have raised optimism among environmental organizations. For example, Tzeporah Berman, the founder and chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said: “Santa Marta represents a historic breakthrough — the first time we bring together a group of nations willing to act. We are building a coalition of ambitious countries willing to lead and break the consensus deadlock that has paralysed concrete action on fossil fuels in the UN negotiations.” Similarly, Shiva Gounden, Greenpeace head of delegation in Santa Marta and head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said, “Santa Marta was a breath of fresh air, a real sign that the wind is finally shifting. But a signal isn’t a solution and the transition is still moving far too slowly for my people in the Pacific and all climate vulnerable communities. … [At the next conference,] we can’t just bring more ambition; we have to bring proof of implementation [and] turn that momentum into a reality that keeps our homes and our people above water and our future safe.”
At least some officials from developing
countries saw progress at the conference. “It’s very heartening to have
the Global North and the Global South in the same room, countries
willing to talk about transitioning away from fossil fuels,” the
Minister for Climate Change Adaptation for Vanuatu, Ralph Regenvanu, told Carbon Brief.
And one positive result came from the Global North. The French
government announced simultaneously with the conference that it would reach net zero by 2050
through ending the consumption of coal by 2030, oil by 2045 and fossil
gas by 2050. France intends to have two-thirds of automobiles be
electric by 2030 and a 25 percent increase in the use of mass transit by
that year. This would be achieved in part through 15 gigawatts of new
offshore wind power. Unfortunately, the French government also announced
it would build two new nuclear reactors and double its biofuel
capacity. Nuclear energy is extraordinarily expensive and produces radioactive waste, and biofuels cause destruction of forests and the diversion of crops from being used as food.
Confronting the structures of fossil fuel dependency
However optimistic some may be, and
whatever new commitments are made by governments, fossil fuels exist in a
tight nexus with the global capitalist economy. Fossil fuels are not
simply promoted; they are actively subsidized. Subsidized to
extraordinary amounts. Just in the year 2014, fossil fuels received subsidies worth US$5.6 trillion,
seven percent of that year’s gross world product. Fossil fuels are
major contributors to pollution, and the cost of pollution is severe:
Two World Health Organization studies estimated that polluted
environments cause 1.7 million children age five or younger to die per year. The fossil fuel industry has long been a bulwark of global capitalism, its biggest corporations among the world’s largest and long accustomed to bending political processes to their advantages
An analysis by Climate Action Tracker points out the strong headwinds those wishing
to transition face. “Countries transitioning away from fossil fuels,
especially developing countries, face serious hurdles such as competing
demands for energy access, growing electricity demand, high capital
costs, and difficulties accessing finance for adequate power
infrastructure, including grids and storage,” the analysis said.
“It is therefore critical that governments
clearly set out the investment needs required to bring their
transmission and distribution networks up to the level needed for high
shares of renewables – and that developed countries provide financial
support to help close this gap. Another challenge for many developing
countries that produce and export fossil fuels is the structural
dependence of their economies on these revenues for government budgets,
foreign exchange earnings and employment. Global financial institutions
can also undermine phase‑out efforts, as Colombia’s experience shows:
its decision to halt new oil and gas exploration exposed its reliance on
fossil fuel revenues, leading financial markets to view the move as a
fiscal risk, weakening its credit outlook, increasing borrowing costs,
and contributing to a more volatile currency.”
Climate Action Tracker notes that Colombia, upon the election of President Gustavo Petro, issued no more permits for new fossil fuel projects, steps necessary for Colombia to meet its commitment to reach net zero by 2050, calling the moratorium “a bold and necessary step toward global decarbonisation.” Nonetheless, “Colombia remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels for fiscal revenue, exports, and investment,” making the transition from fossil fuels difficult. “Following the announcement, international credit rating agencies interpreted it as heightening fiscal risks due to the country’s reliance on fossil fuels, a perception that was reflected in a lower credit rating and increasing borrowing costs. This underscores a system that continues to reward fossil fuel-based growth while treating transition-oriented actions as economic risks.”
Certainly, whatever push this new
initiative might provide would be welcome. The world is woefully short
of what needs to be done to address global warming. In its latest
report, issued in March, Climate Action Tracker found that not one country meets
the standard of “1.5 degrees C. Paris Agreement Compatible.” Only 10
countries rate as “almost sufficient,” including Norway, Nigeria and
Chile. Most of the biggest countries, and biggest contributors to
greenhouse gases, are far from sufficient. Canada, China, India and
Mexico are among the countries listed as “highly insufficient” and
Argentina, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States are in the
worst category, “critically insufficient.”
Canada, for example, continues to finance fossil fuel companies
and infrastructure, showing “weakened policy ambition, slow
implementation, and a widening gap between current emissions levels and
Canada’s 2030 target.” The U.S., as the world knows, is doing everything
it can to worsen global warming through spectacularly irresponsible
energy policies. U.S. “climate policies and commitments
reflect minimal to no action and are not at all consistent with the
Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature limit” — if all countries were to
mimic U.S. policy, world temperatures would rise by at least 4 degrees
C. China has already exceeded its 2030 NDC targets
for installing 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity, and in
reforestation. But although China’s greenhouse-gas emissions appear to
have peaked, the forecast forthcoming decline is well short of the
necessary level, in part due to continuing to bring on new coal-fired
power plants.
It remains to be seen if the Santa Marta
conference is the beginning of a process that will lead to accelerated
and deepened commitments to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The world
remains on course to badly overshoot the Paris goal of capping global
warming to 1.5 degrees C.; current policies and actions, if fulfilled in
full, would result in a temperature rise of 2.6 degrees, and possibly
more, according to Climate Action Tracker calculations. “[I]t
is disappointing that wealthy governments have still not stepped up to
provide sufficient climate financing for poorer countries, which face
the brunt of the impacts of the climate crisis, to make this move,” Oxfam said
following the conference’s conclusion. “Taxing the super-rich and big
polluters to fund a just transition is the obvious viable solution that
governments must choose.”
Oil Change International reacted similarly, noting the multiple roadblocks that could be cleared:
“It’s never been more clear that fossil
fuel phase out is imperative for stability and peace. Every step away
from fossil fuels weakens the outsized power and wealth that allows the
US to wage illegal wars in the name of energy dominance. … A just
transition requires breaking the structural barriers that keep countries
locked in crisis—through debt cancellation, scaled-up public finance,
and a clear rejection of the false solutions and industry influence that
continue to delay real action. Governments must match this growing
momentum with concrete changes to deliver a transition that works for
people, not profit, because the human cost of delay is already being
paid every day.”
Oil majors won’t be willing to give up profits
Given the enormous profits racked up by
oil companies, giving them the ability to heavily lobby and lavish money
on public office holders, saving Earth from climate catastrophe is an
enormous task. Saudi Aramco, the Saudi state oil company, reported
US$182 billion in profits last year. The top 10 most profitable oil companies
hauled in a composite $432 billion in profits. The U.S./Israeli war on
Iran will do nothing to dampen oil company profits. On the contrary, the
world’s 100 biggest oil companies are banking more than $30 million per hour in unearned profit from the war, according to an analysis reported in the Guardian.
Ten companies are calculated to haul in an extra $106 billion if oil is
priced at $100 a barrel for the remainder of 2026, with Saudi Aramco
leading the pack at $25.5 billion.
We shouldn’t be fooled by oil companies
attempting to rebrand themselves as “energy companies” dedicated to
achieving net zero greenhouse-gas emissions. In his recent book Crude Capitalism: Oil, Corporate Power and the Making of the World Market, Adam Hanieh explains how oil companies are seeking to “greenwash” themselves to cover up their all-out efforts to head off attempts to reduce oil production.
“Net zero” strategies are a key component
of oil company greenwashing, Professor Hanieh wrote; the metrics that
purport to show offsets to greenhouse-gas emissions are largely
legerdemain and rest on carbon-capture technologies that largely don’t
exist. The extremely limited carbon-capture technology that has been
deployed is only partially effective and currently captures less than
0.1 percent of emissions, yet carbon capture is promoted to be a
significant factor in offsetting emissions. Most of the small amount of
carbon captured is then used to frack oil, extracting oil that wouldn’t
otherwise be viable to be taken — and this is counted as an offset from
company emissions. Worse, only emissions from production are counted
toward oil company statistics, not the actual use of them, which is a
far bigger emitter than production. Professor Hanieh summarizes this as
follows:
“The popular image of Big Oil as a
dinosaur being dragged reluctantly towards the inevitable end of the
fossil era is false; these companies are taking a leading role in
determining future energy choices. There is no silver lining — the
trajectories established by the oil industry serve to prioritise dubious
technologies and policies, create false narratives, and foreclose the
necessary alternatives that are now urgently demanded. Rather than being
antithetical to their interests, these pathways further entrench the
position of Big Oil at the heart of our energy system.”
The state of the global climate may be
about to become still more dire. A study conducted by six climate and
environmental scientists published in December 2025 in the peer-reviewed
academic journal Nature Communications found that future
“super” El Niño weather events are likely to cause climate shifts to be
“greatly amplified under future greenhouse warming.” Specifically, the
scientists conclude that “climate regime shifts” — defined as “abrupt
and persistent transitions between alternative stable states in the
climate system” that pose “serious threats” to ecosystems and human
habitability — are becoming much more likely.
Such a change potentially means a sudden shift in climate that does not
reverse; unusually warm temperatures often experienced during El Niño
events could become permanent, destabilizing the climate. In other
words, global warming could trigger a sudden chaotic surge of more
global warming, enough to upend hydrological cycles and ecosystem
stability, including sea ice dynamics and marine and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Once again, humanity faces an existential
choice: Capitalism or survival. The price of business as usual will be
catastrophic environmental damage, including drastic disruptions to
agriculture. Global warming denialists like to point out the high cost
of full mitigation. But the cost of not doing so will be far higher. The
cost of capitalism will continue to be high as well. An economy based
on meeting human needs and in harmony with the environment, not one made
for private profit and that externalizes onto society environmental and
other costs, is our only path to restoring balance to the only planet
we have.
This article was originally published by
Systemic Disorder; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.
Email
