Global Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Talks: Can Santa Marta Conference Overcome Structural Lock-Ins and Colonial Energy Path Dependencies?

Indigenous communities have historically borne the brunt of fossil fuel extraction, with over 40% of global carbon sinks located in Indigenous territories. Their resistance to pipelines, mines, and drilling (e.g., Standing Rock, Amazon Watch campaigns) demonstrates that 'transition' without consent is extractivism in new forms. Yet their knowledge systems—such as Andean cosmovisions that treat water as a sacred commons—offer alternatives to commodified energy futures. The Santa Marta conference’s top-down approach risks repeating the erasure of these epistemologies.

The fossil fuel era is rooted in 19th-century colonial resource extraction, where European powers and later the U.S. established energy systems to serve industrial capitalism at the expense of local economies. The 1972 Stockholm Conference and 1992 Rio Summit both promised transitions but failed due to weak enforcement and corporate capture, leaving a legacy of 'greenwashing' and false solutions. Today’s phase-out talks echo these patterns, with wealthy nations outsourcing emissions reductions to the Global South while maintaining high-carbon lifestyles.

In Africa, the African Union’s 2023 'Green Recovery Action Plan' emphasizes energy sovereignty and rejects conditional loans from the IMF/World Bank, which often impose fossil-dependent 'development' models. Pacific Island nations have framed climate action as a human rights issue, suing Australia and the EU for climate inaction under international law. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has exported coal plants to 20+ countries, but its recent shift to renewables reflects a pragmatic, state-led transition that contrasts with Western market fundamentalism.

Peer-reviewed studies show that 75% of global emissions stem from 100 companies, with just 20 fossil fuel firms responsible for a third of historical CO2. The IPCC’s AR6 warns that without immediate phase-out of unabated fossil fuels, 1.5°C is unattainable, yet 'transition finance' often funds gas as a 'bridge fuel.' The Santa Marta conference’s focus on 'just transition' lacks a clear definition of 'unabated' or mechanisms to prevent carbon lock-in via carbon capture technologies.

Artists like Tania Bruguera and Indigenous filmmakers such as Alberto Araújo have used creative resistance to expose the spiritual violence of extraction, linking land degradation to cultural erasure. In Colombia, the 'Guardians of the Amazon' movement combines traditional knowledge with digital storytelling to challenge fossil narratives. Spiritual leaders, such as the Dalai Lama’s calls for ecological compassion, frame climate action as a moral imperative, yet these voices are sidelined in policy forums.

Scenario modeling by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests that a 1.5°C-aligned phase-out requires ending new oil/gas projects by 2025, yet no major economy is on track. Alternative models, such as the 'Buen Vivir' framework in Ecuador, propose degrowth and post-extractivist economies, while the 'Degrowth' movement in Europe advocates for shrinking GDP to reduce emissions. The Santa Marta conference’s incrementalism risks locking in 2–3°C warming pathways, with catastrophic feedback loops by 2050.

Frontline communities—such as the Niger Delta’s Ogoni people, facing 50+ years of Shell’s pollution, or the Adivasi in India resisting Adani’s coal mines—are excluded from high-level negotiations despite bearing the highest costs. Women, who make up 80% of climate-displaced populations, are rarely included in 'just transition' planning, despite their disproportionate labor in energy transitions. The conference’s language of 'stakeholders' often translates to corporate lobbyists and government officials, not those directly impacted.