A group of 57 nations, accounting for about a third of the global economy, convened at a coal port to declare their intention to move away from coal, oil, and gas. The significance of this gathering was underscored by the absence of major players like the United States, China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.
The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands in Santa Marta, Colombia, from April 24 to 29, was designed to bypass petroleum-exporting states that have impeded U.N. climate discussions for years. The conference took place amidst the Iran war, the largest oil supply disruption to date, highlighting the fact that reliance on fossil fuels is not just an environmental issue but also a matter of national security.
The impact of the Santa Marta conference, whether it becomes a turning point or another sidetrack, will be determined by the actions of its participants over the next year and a half. The shift in dialogue is crucial for both climate and U.S. energy policies.
A Coalition of the Willing, Sitting in a Circle
The Santa Marta conference deviated from the typical United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) format. Instead of formal speeches and rigid texts, ministers and envoys engaged in small group discussions with civil society and Indigenous representatives present. According to Carbon Brief’s on-site reporting, officials described these discussions as “refreshing,” “highly successful,” and “groundbreaking.”
The guest list itself was a statement. Colombia and the Netherlands invited countries that had supported a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap at COP30 in Belém the previous year. China, India, Russia, the United States, and Gulf states were notably absent. Co-host Irene Vélez Torres, Colombia’s environment minister, clarified that the aim was to form a “coalition of the willing,” avoiding a repeat of past discussions. Participants included significant fossil fuel producers like Australia, Norway, Canada, Colombia, and Nigeria, who recognized the contradictions in their economies but committed to the dialogue.
Panama’s special climate representative, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, in his opening address, encapsulated the sentiment: “For 34 years, we have negotiated the symptoms of the climate crisis and bulletproofed its cause. Thirty-four years of pledges. And where are we now? Economies built on fossil fuels are unraveling in real time. Fossil fuels are not just dirty. They are unreliable, they are dangerous, and they must end.”
The Iran War Changed the Game
The conference unfolded in the context of the Iran war, marked by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global oil and significant LNG volumes transit. This event, deemed the largest supply disruption by the International Energy Agency (IEA), saw Brent crude prices reach $144 per barrel, with U.S. gasoline averaging $4.10 a gallon. The Philippines declared an energy emergency, and Pakistan reduced its public sector workweek to conserve fuel.
These upheavals shifted the energy transition narrative. UK climate envoy Rachel Kyte highlighted to delegates that it was “irresponsible to ignore the second fossil-fuel crisis in five years,” referencing the wars in Ukraine and Iran.
Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven emphasized, “Price volatility and dependence on imports are structurally and unacceptably impacting our economies. We need to move away from fossil fuels not only because it is good for the climate, but because it strengthens our energy security.”
Earlier in the year, U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell remarked in Paris that the war is “supercharging” the energy transition. The IEA noted that the Iran war has drastically altered global oil consumption forecasts, with a projected contraction of 80,000 barrels per day in 2026, the first decrease since 2020. This contrasts sharply with the expected growth of 730,000 barrels per day before the conflict.
Trade patterns are shifting as well. Chinese exports of solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles increased by 70 percent year over year in March, with electric vehicle exports rising by 140 percent, according to energy think tank Ember.
U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband declared, “The era of fossil fuel security is over, the era of clean energy security must come of age.”
What Santa Marta Produced
Santa Marta was not a treaty negotiation, and the co-hosts were clear that it would not produce binding commitments. However, it did establish a framework for progress. The closing plenary on April 29 announced four specific outcomes:
- A second conference in 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland—a pairing of a small island state and a high-income country to reflect the coalition’s diversity.
- A workstream to create national fossil fuel transition roadmaps, supported by a new global science panel. France and Colombia presented their roadmaps during the conference.
- A financial reform initiative aimed at identifying fossil fuel subsidies and addressing debt constraints in developing countries, supported by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
- An effort to decarbonize trade, backed by the OECD, with the aim of establishing a “fossil fuel–free trade system.”
The Science Panel for Global Energy Transition was launched at the academic pre-conference. Based at the University of São Paulo, it will involve 50 to 100 scientists and will produce annual updates and country-specific analyses upon request. Johan Rockström of the Potsdam Institute and Carlos Nobre of the University of São Paulo launched the panel, emphasizing its independence from government line-by-line approval, a departure from the U.N. model.
The pre-conference also yielded a synthesis report from around 400 scientists with 12 “action insights,” recommending halting new fossil fuel expansion and banning advertising for fossil fuels due to their health risks. A separate roadmap, led by Professor Piers Forster of the University of Leeds, detailed how Colombia could reduce energy emissions by 90 percent below 2015 levels by 2050, achieving net economy-wide savings of approximately $23 billion annually by mid-century.
The Brazilian COP30 presidency committed to integrating these inputs into an “informal” fossil fuel roadmap to be presented at COP31 in Turkey this November. This handoff will determine the process’s political significance. Santa Marta established a procedure; COP31 will test its effectiveness.
The Limits Of Cooperation
It is important not to overstate the significance of Santa Marta. The conference included representatives of about a third of the global economy, while the remaining two-thirds, including the world’s top two emitters and largest oil producer, the United States, were absent. Tuvalu’s climate minister Maina Talia, slated to co-host the 2027 conference, noted that the invitation criteria might need to change, saying, “If we are missing out the main players in the discussion, then we are moving in a loop. We need to find somehow how we can engage with [them], because there is no point in talking to ourselves.”
The Fossil Fuel Treaty initiative, a binding legal instrument endorsed by 18 nations, was not included in the final report. None of the workstreams have enforcement mechanisms. The Iran war, while accelerating renewable adoption, is also being used by some governments, including the Trump administration, to justify rolling back climate policies and expanding domestic fossil fuel production. The argument for energy security can be made in either direction, and which argument prevails is a political battle, not a technical one.
Canada’s opening statement at the conference was noted for omitting the term “fossil fuels” entirely, highlighting that even among willing participants, levels of commitment vary.
Outside the conference, Colombian mining unions protested, holding signs that read “More oil, less Petro.” Colombia is approaching a presidential election in late May, and the continuity of the Santa Marta process is not assured with potential leadership changes.
Why It Still Matters
Santa Marta is not the moment when fossil fuels were abandoned. It is the moment when a significant number of governments recognized that the COP process alone cannot achieve this goal. This represents a substantial diplomatic shift. For decades, the industry’s primary advantage at U.N. talks has been the ability of any single petrostate to block binding language on production. Santa Marta is the first serious attempt to bypass that veto.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis forced finance ministers, defense ministers, and central bankers to acknowledge that fossil fuel dependence is intertwined with national security. The IEA’s Fatih Birol described it as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history.” The declining costs of solar and battery technologies, by 80 percent and 90 percent respectively over the past decade, have made alternatives viable. Santa Marta provided a platform for this shift.
Whether the world is transitioning away from fossil fuels more rapidly will be assessed through pipeline cancellations, capital flows, and emissions trends in the coming years, not through conference statements. However, Santa Marta marked a change: “Fossil fuel” went from being a term meticulously excluded from negotiated texts to the title of a conference attended by 57 governments. Coalitions of active participants tend to start modestly and either expand or dissipate. This one is worth monitoring.
What You Can Do
Individual actions alone will not phase out fossil fuels. However, the policy decisions that will, particularly in the 18 months leading up to COP31, are influenced by sustained public pressure and personal choices indicating demand:
- Track the workstreams. Monitor the progress of Santa Marta’s three workstreams (national roadmaps, finance, trade) and the Brazilian COP30 presidency’s informal fossil fuel roadmap in the lead-up to COP31. Detailed updates are available from Climate Home News, Carbon Brief, and the Fossil Fuel Treaty initiative.
- Ask your representatives where they stand. In the U.S., neither political party invited Santa Marta participants. However, state and city governments can join subnational coalitions like the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Local action remains the most practical approach.
- Reduce your own exposure to oil price volatility. Consider adopting heat pumps, EVs, and rooftop or community solar as household-scale equivalents of energy security policy. Federal tax credits are available for many of these in 2026, although the IRA framework is under threat—taking action before changes occur is advisable.
- Support utilities and pension funds that are divesting from fossil fuels. Where you have influence, whether as a customer, shareholder, or pension participant, inquire if the organization is assessing fossil fuel transition risks.
- Donate or volunteer with groups doing transition work. The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, Climate Action Network, and Indigenous-led organizations like the Organisation of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon were instrumental in organizing Santa Marta.
“`
