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.