"When the largest emitters have been present at the COP negotiations, they have pushed for a veto to prevent any discussion of the need to transition beyond fossil fuels," said the conference host.
The annual gathering of leaders organised by the UN - called climate COPs - have been deeply disappointing to many in the climate movement. Despite countries acknowledging the need to phase out fossil fuels, COPs have ended with few concrete plans, leaving countries and regions to grapple with the economic challenges largely on their own.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Now, the Netherlands and Colombia have brought together world leaders and engaged them in discussions that are not governed by the UN process.
“Right now, at the UN, we will not make big advancement on anything … because we are under the rule of consensus,” says Jean Lemire, Quebec's climate envoy, referring to a system where countries must all agree before decisions are adopted.
The First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, being held in Colombia this week, hopes to succeed where COP have failed, by speeding up the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy.
Why was Trump not invited to Santa Marta climate conference?
Despite 60 countries being in attendance, the Trump administration was not invited to the Santa Marta conference.
Organisers said the invite list was focused on a "coalition of do-ers" - governments seeking to accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels.
Since coming to office, President Trump has repeatedly called climate change "a hoax" and removed all mentions of climate change from federal websites.
He has withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement, gutted the Environmental Protection Agency, nominated fossil fuel industry insiders for positions overseeing energy development and land use, expanded oil and gas drilling plus hundreds of other actions that put the health of Americans at risk from climate-related issues like air pollution.
The AFP news agency asked conference host Irene Velez Torres, Colombia's Environment Minister, whether the absence of the world's biggest fossil fuel producers threatens the credibility of the event.
She answered: "When the largest emitters have been present at the COP negotiations, they have been the ones who have pushed for a veto to prevent any discussion of the need to transition beyond fossil fuels.
Today, it is worth focusing on the more than 50 countries that are here, representing almost 50 per cent of the global population, including consumer countries, producer countries and vulnerable countries of the Global South and North. In that sense, we are a new power today."
US states are defying Trump's anti-climate stance
Despite the Trump administration not being at the conference, US states are proud of the progress they are making on a sub-national level.
California is using carbon markets – systems that require companies to pay for or limit their emissions – and low-carbon fuel standards to generate investment and guide the clean energy transition.
“We remain steadfast in our commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045,” says Sarah Izant, deputy secretary for climate policy at the California Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the state’s environmental and climate policies, adding the shift also brings public health and economic benefits.
She says California remains a “stable and reliable partner” on climate action and pointed to coalitions of US states continuing to pursue emissions cuts. She acknowledged the transition has brought challenges, including disruptions in fuel supply as refineries close and the need to supplement with imports in the short term.
In Canada, Quebec has taken a more direct approach, passing a law to halt new fossil fuel exploration and production altogether.
“We decided, with a consensus, to say no to fossil fuel in Quebec,” says Jean Lemire, the province’s climate envoy, even as he acknowledged pressure over costs and energy policy.
But Lemire warned that global efforts to coordinate the transition remain slow.
“There’s a lot of money for war,” said Lemire. “But there’s one common enemy – climate change – and we don’t find that money.”
The financial system favours fossil fuels
While renewable energy such as solar and wind is often cheaper to generate than fossil fuels, experts say the cost of transitioning is driven by other factors.
Governments must invest heavily in infrastructure, including power grids and storage, while replacing existing oil and gas systems that still underpin many economies. In developing countries, high borrowing costs and limited access to financing can also make clean energy projects significantly more expensive to build, even if they are cheaper to run over time.
Experts say the problem is rooted in how the global financial system is structured.
Many countries and regional governments are not opposed to shifting away from fossil fuels, but are constrained by debt, limited fiscal space and the high cost of financing cleaner energy projects, says Amiera Sawas, head of research and policy at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.
“They aren’t wedded ideologically to fossil fuels,” she says. “They can access financing for fossil fuels more easily.”
In many developing regions, borrowing costs for renewable energy can be several times higher than in wealthier economies – averaging about 15 per cent in parts of Africa compared with roughly 2 per cent in Europe and North America – making it cheaper in the short term to continue investing in oil and gas.
That dynamic can create what researchers describe as a “debt–fossil fuel trap,” where countries rely on oil and gas income to service debt and maintain energy access, leaving them with little room to invest in alternatives.
