Sixty nations converge in Santa Marta to negotiate fossil fuel phase-out amid extractive industry resistance and neocolonial energy debt

Indigenous communities from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and Amazon basin have long resisted fossil fuel extraction on sacred lands, framing it as a violation of 'territorial rights' and 'living law' (e.g., Wiwa, Kogi, and Wayuu peoples). Their proposals—such as the 'Amazon Constitution' and 'Rights of Nature' laws—offer alternatives to market-based transitions by centering land restitution and plurinational energy governance. Yet these voices are absent from summit agendas, which prioritize state and corporate-led 'solutions' over Indigenous self-determination.

The 'transition' narrative echoes colonial-era resource extraction, where 19th-century coal powered British industrialization while colonies were forced into monoculture economies. Post-WWII 'development' projects (e.g., World Bank’s energy loans) locked Global South nations into fossil dependency, while Northern nations delayed decarbonization under the guise of 'catch-up growth.' The 1992 Earth Summit’s failure to address historical emissions debt set the precedent for today’s carbon market loopholes, which allow Northern polluters to offset emissions rather than phase out fossil fuels.

In the Pacific, nations like Vanuatu and Tuvalu frame fossil fuel phase-out as a matter of survival, not 'transition,' and have led calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. African nations such as Nigeria and Angola argue that 'just transition' must include reparations for colonial-era resource theft and climate damages, while Middle Eastern states (e.g., Saudi Arabia) resist phase-out by positioning themselves as 'transition partners' for hydrogen exports. These perspectives reveal a global divide between those who see energy as a human right and those who treat it as a geopolitical commodity.

Scientific consensus (IPCC AR6) confirms that limiting warming to 1.5°C requires a 43% global reduction in fossil fuel use by 2030, yet current pledges (NDCs) align with 2.7°C warming. The 'transition' framing ignores the 'lock-in' effect of new fossil infrastructure (e.g., gas pipelines with 30+ year lifespans) and the rebound effect of 'green' energy exports (e.g., lithium mining) that often exceed the emissions saved. Peer-reviewed studies show that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are 3-4x less efficient than direct emissions reductions, yet they dominate summit discussions.

Artists and spiritual leaders in Colombia’s Sierra Nevada have used 'minga' (collective work) ceremonies to protest fossil fuel projects, framing them as violations of the 'Law of Origin' that binds humanity to the Earth. In Nigeria, the Ogoni people’s resistance to Shell’s oil extraction was accompanied by protest music (e.g., Fela Kuti’s 'Coffin for the Head of State') that linked environmental destruction to neocolonial violence. These creative and spiritual framings challenge the summit’s technocratic approach by emphasizing reciprocity with nature over extractive progress.

Scenario modelling by the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that a 1.5°C-aligned phase-out requires immediate cessation of new fossil fuel projects, yet the Santa Marta summit’s 'coalition' lacks enforcement mechanisms. Alternative futures include degrowth economies in the Global North, energy sovereignty models in the Global South, and 'post-extractivist' policies that prioritize circular economies over GDP growth. The summit’s focus on 'transition' risks locking in a 'green colonialism' model, where renewable energy is exported from the South to the North while extractive industries relocate.

Frontline communities in Colombia’s Cesar coal region (e.g., Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Wayuu) face displacement and health crises from mining, yet their demands for reparations and land restitution are excluded from summit dialogues. Women in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, who bear the brunt of oil spills, have organized via groups like 'Women in Nigeria' to demand corporate accountability, but their voices are sidelined in favor of state and corporate 'transition' narratives. The summit’s 'coalition' is dominated by G20 nations and fossil fuel corporations, with marginalized groups reduced to 'stakeholder' status rather than decision-making power.