Tag: colombia

Posted on

Santa Marta and the Energy Transition

As representatives from over 50 countries gather in Santa Marta for the International Conference on Fossil Fuel Transition, an uncomfortable reality looms over the entire conversation: what governments say and what they actually fund don’t always align.

There is plenty of talk about energy transition, decarbonization, clean energy, and energy independence. In fact, as has been echoed throughout the event, many nations are at a breaking point: they either accelerate the transition or remain exposed to price shocks and energy vulnerability. However, once you look at the numbers, the story becomes more complex.

Globally, in 2024, governments allocated over $1.2 trillion in support of fossil fuels, compared to roughly $254 billion directed toward clean energy. In other words, the very system we aim to transform is still, in practice, the one receiving the most backing.

This isn’t just an inconsistency; it’s a reflection of how energy systems actually operate. When there is pressure on prices or supply risks, governments react. They subsidize, they stabilize, they secure supply. Failing to do so would carry immediate political and economic costs. The problem isn’t that knee-jerk reaction itself; the problem is that the response isn’t always accompanied by a clear strategy on how the system will transform over time.

This is where the discussion on roadmaps—a central theme at the Santa Marta conference—becomes crucial. These plans aren’t just technical details: they provide the process with direction, align expectations, and reduce uncertainty for governments, investors, and communities alike.

Without that sequencing, what you have isn’t a transition, but a series of reactive decisions. This matters more than it might seem because when signals are mixed, investment stalls, decisions are postponed, and the system becomes even more vulnerable. You end up with the worst of both worlds: failing to transform the system at the necessary pace while also failing to fully guarantee short-term stability.

The debate, then, shouldn’t revolve around whether or not to support fossil fuels, but rather the logic behind that support and for how long. Pretending the system can reorganize itself overnight is unrealistic, but continuing to react without a clear course of action is equally unsustainable.

Ultimately, the energy transition isn’t measured by what is announced at events like the Santa Marta conference promoted by President Petro, but by the coherence between words, funding, and the order in which things are done. Today, what we are seeing isn’t so much a lack of ambition, but a profound lack of alignment.

Posted on

Do You Know What “Energy Transition” Means in Colombia?

Few expressions are repeated as frequently in today’s energy debate as “energy transition.” However, it is also one of the least defined.

Depending on who is saying it, it can mean anything from abandoning fossil fuels and electrifying the economy to reducing carbon emissions or diversifying the energy matrix. In some cases, it is even used to refer to all these things simultaneously, with varying degrees of urgency.

Do we actually know what we are talking about when we discuss the energy transition in Colombia?

In its simplest form, the energy transition refers to the process by which a country changes how it produces, transports, and consumes energy to reduce its environmental impact. In our case, the transition in Colombia is usually associated primarily with the expansion of renewable energies like solar and wind, the electrification of certain sectors of the economy, and the gradual reduction of dependence on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas).

Now, part of the problem with defining this term stems from the fact that the conversation happens in highly specialized circles: engineers, economists, regulators, and experts who frequently debate energy matrices, emissions, or emerging technologies. These terms are rarely translated into language that is clear and practical for the majority of Colombians, turning what should be a technical evolution into a challenge of public communication.

Understanding energy is crucial: when the key concepts of such an ambitious transformation are unclear, public debate becomes muddled. Other actors take advantage of this confusion to promote their own agendas. Consequently, the average citizen either flatly rejects what they don’t understand or simply ignores a topic they don’t perceive as relevant to their own lives.

The energy transition in Colombia implies much more than building new technologies or modifying regulatory frameworks. It also implies building a public conversation capable of explaining what is changing, why, and to what end.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean society needs to become experts in energy engineering. But it does mean that any transformation of this magnitude requires a language that is clearer, more accessible, and more connected to the daily lives of Colombians.

Posted on

Energy Transition vs. Energy Aggregation: The Problem Isn’t Technical, It’s Narrative

I recently came across a social media campaign proposing something interesting: that we stop talking about “energy transition” in Colombia and start talking about “energy aggregation.”

The idea, as I understand it, is that Colombia cannot “transition” because doing so would jeopardize our energy security; “transition” sounds like replacing some sources with others, or depending on a single matrix. Therefore, the “correct” term should be “aggregation”—that is, adding, complementing, and diversifying.

Beyond whether this is technically accurate, what interests me is something else: what happens when we try to change a term that is already fully established globally?

The energy transition is not a local invention or a Colombian ideological slogan. It is the framework under which economies like Germany, China, and the United States are operating. It is the language used by markets, multilaterals, and investors. It is the term that organizes the global conversation.

Attempting to replace it here isn’t just a simple semantic adjustment. It is trying to play on a different semantic field when the game is already being played elsewhere. And we are losing.

From a communication standpoint, this move has a problem: it doesn’t change the mental framework of those who think differently. It doesn’t persuade critics. It doesn’t reconfigure the international conversation. What it does, in practice, is reinforce the idea among those already convinced—the followers. And that, frankly, is both unnecessary and inefficient.

Energy transition in Colombia does not mean shutting down mining tomorrow. It doesn’t mean closing the industry. It doesn’t mean ignoring that we currently depend on certain sources. It means looking toward the horizon and setting goals. It means planning.

I understand that for some trade associations, the term “energy transition” has become ideologically charged. It’s true: some sectors in Colombia have used it as a political banner. But just because a term becomes politicized in public debate doesn’t mean its conceptual architecture is captured by that ideology.

Colombia may not be the world’s largest producer of $CO_2$, but it does suffer the consequences of climate change. We see it in the floods in the department of Córdoba; in rural populations in Magdalena; in communities that do not participate in semantic debates but do feel the impact every rainy season.

Companies must protect their interests and communicate based on their productive reality. Colombian energy security is a serious matter. But perhaps the challenge isn’t replacing global language, but learning how to inhabit it intelligently.

The energy transition is not, by definition, an attack on mining. It is a horizon of transformation. The productive sectors that understand how to position themselves within that horizon—without denying or diluting it—will be the ones that achieve the greatest legitimacy in the long run.

Perhaps it’s not about changing the word, but about changing how we tell the story. And that is where, more than new terms, what we need is a better strategy.