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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This isn\u2019t just an inconsistency; it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is where the discussion on roadmaps\u2014a central theme at the Santa Marta conference\u2014becomes crucial. These plans aren\u2019t just technical details: they provide the process with direction, align expectations, and reduce uncertainty for governments, investors, and communities alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Without that sequencing, what you have isn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The debate, then, shouldn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … <\/p>\n