$1.2 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies. Fifty-seven countries willing to discuss winding down production. Zero binding commitments, zero deadlines, and the nations responsible for nearly half the world’s emissions not even in the room.

That is the balance sheet of the first International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, held April 24–29 in Santa Marta, Colombia — a Caribbean port city whose economy is built on coal exports.

The conference was born from frustration. At COP30 in Belém last year, roughly 80 countries demanded a global roadmap to phase out coal, oil, and gas. Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, and China blocked it. The consensus rule governing UN climate summits gives major fossil fuel producers an effective veto. So Colombia and the Netherlands tried a different approach: convening only countries willing to commit to a transition.

What emerged was a “coalition of the willing” — 57 countries representing more than half of global GDP, nearly a third of energy demand, and a fifth of fossil fuel supply. Almost half are fossil fuel producers themselves, including Canada, Norway, Nigeria, and Colombia. The US, China, Russia, and India were excluded. Three of those four — the US, China, and Russia — account for 45.15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to 2024 data cited by Carbon Brief.

Roadmaps Without Requirements

The most tangible outcome was an agreement to develop national roadmaps — country-by-country strategies for winding down fossil fuel production and use. Unlike existing Paris Agreement commitments, which address only domestic emissions, these roadmaps would cover exported fuels, closing a loophole that has allowed producers to claim clean credentials while selling fossil fuels abroad.

France became the first developed country to present a draft roadmap. Colombia and Brazil are working on theirs.

A new Global Energy Transition Panel of 50 to 100 scientists was announced to advise governments. Modeled on the IPCC but designed to move faster, with annual reports and independence from government approval of its findings — a distinction proponents say will allow more direct and timely advice.

Delegates agreed on three workstreams: designing transition roadmaps, restructuring fiscal and debt systems that lock countries into extraction, and reorienting trade rules that incentivize continued production.

What Stayed Off the Table

The roadmaps are voluntary. There are no requirements for their structure, no deadlines for completing a transition, and no enforcement if countries fail to deliver. Eighteen nations — mostly small island states and Colombia itself — pushed for a binding international treaty to manage the phase-out. That proposal went nowhere.

Tuvalu’s Minister for Home Affairs, Climate, and Environment Maina Talia framed the tension plainly: “If they come without concrete roadmaps, we are losing an opportunity. But, at the end of the day, they are voluntary.”

The investor-state dispute settlement system, which allows fossil fuel companies to sue governments over climate policies, was discussed but left unresolved. A report by PowerShift and six NGOs found that the UK and the Netherlands, the co-host, ranked worst in perpetuating ISDS barriers. Colombia withdrew from the system on March 25. But the final conclusions described ISDS only as a “perceived” barrier — language that Cleodie Rickard of Global Justice Now said reflected the Dutch government playing a “diluting role.”

National oil companies were absent from the discussions. Juliana Peña-Niño of the Natural Resource Governance Institute argued that without their participation, practical phase-out planning remains abstract. Fossil fuels still supply 87% of global energy; oil alone accounts for 34%.

The Subsidy Gap

The financial asymmetry is stark. An International Institute for Sustainable Development report released during the conference found that fossil fuels received $1.2 trillion in subsidies and other support in 2024, compared with $254 billion for clean energy — a gap of nearly five to one.

The science offers no reprieve. “We are inevitably going to crash through the 1.5°C limit within the next three to five years,” Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told the BBC. “Breaking through 1.5°C means we enter a far more dangerous world.”

Middle East conflict has pushed up oil prices, underscoring the energy security risks of fossil fuel dependence. Rockström noted that European electric vehicle demand has risen sharply in response — a sign markets may move faster than diplomacy.

Greenpeace offered a blunt summary of the gap between Santa Marta’s format and its output: “Signal isn’t a solution.”

Tuvalu, 2027

A second conference is planned for Tuvalu in early 2027, co-hosted by Ireland — a wealthy European nation alongside one of the countries most threatened by rising seas. A coordination group will try to maintain momentum in the interim.

Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres framed the challenge: “We decided that the transition away from fossil fuels could no longer remain a slogan but must become a concrete, political and collective endeavour.”

Santa Marta’s legacy may depend on whether “concrete” arrives before the 1.5°C threshold does.

Sources