I recently came across a social media campaign proposing something interesting: that we stop talking about \u00abenergy transition\u00bb in Colombia and start talking about \u00abenergy aggregation.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The idea, as I understand it, is that Colombia cannot \u00abtransition\u00bb because doing so would jeopardize our energy security; \u00abtransition\u00bb sounds like replacing some sources with others, or depending on a single matrix. Therefore, the \u00abcorrect\u00bb term should be \u00abaggregation\u00bb\u2014that is, adding, complementing, and diversifying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attempting to replace it here isn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2014the followers. And that, frankly, is both unnecessary and inefficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I understand that for some trade associations, the term \u00abenergy transition\u00bb 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 C\u00f3rdoba; in rural populations in Magdalena; in communities that do not participate in semantic debates but do feel the impact every rainy season.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2014without denying or diluting it\u2014will be the ones that achieve the greatest legitimacy in the long run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I recently came across a social media campaign proposing something interesting: that we stop talking about \u00abenergy transition\u00bb in Colombia and start talking about \u00abenergy aggregation.\u00bb The idea, as I understand it, is that Colombia cannot \u00abtransition\u00bb because doing so would jeopardize our energy security; \u00abtransition\u00bb sounds like replacing some sources with others, or depending … <\/p>\n