A coalition of 57 countries, including California, pledged to phase out fossil fuels—offering a new model beyond UN gridlock.
A little-noticed meeting in Colombia is reshaping the climate conversation just as the United States weighs its own energy and emissions agenda: the Santa Marta push to phase out fossil fuels is emerging as one of the most consequential developments since the 2015 Paris Agreement—largely because it bypasses the politics that have stalled progress.
From April 24 to 29. 57 countries—spanning major European economies and large energy users in the Americas. Asia and elsewhere—gathered in Santa Marta for the First Conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels.. They pledged to phase out burning oil, gas and coal, the principal sources of warming-driven climate change.. The effort is not framed as a short fuse overhaul; it is meant to unfold over the coming years. with each participating country setting out a voluntary national plan for how to “disentangle their economies and societies” from fossil fuel dependence.
The Netherlands, which co-sponsored the conference with Colombia, played a prominent role in defining the approach.. Stientje van Veldhoven. the Dutch minister of the environment and housing. described the plan as a national roadmap challenge rather than an agreement to be ratified through negotiations.. France provided an example of the time horizon being discussed: it says it will eliminate coal by 2027. oil by 2045. and gas by 2050.
Among the coalition often described as “a coalition of the willing” were Germany. the United Kingdom. France. Italy. Brazil. Canada and Spain.. The group also includes California. underscoring that the climate shift is being pursued at multiple levels of government inside the U.S.. The organizers say the bloc represents the largest economic concentration on Earth. with combined gross domestic product of $38.5 trillion—larger than the U.S.. economy and nearly double that of China, according to the International Monetary Fund data referenced for April 2026.
Beyond pledges, the meeting’s significance hinges on market power.. The 57 participating countries account for roughly 30% of current global fossil fuel consumption.. If those commitments translate into sustained reductions in demand, it would push prices lower—a basic economic relationship.. Reduced revenues for fossil fuel producers could. in turn. threaten the viability of existing and planned fossil infrastructure. a risk the report highlights as potentially serious for the financial outlook of projects that rely on long-term fuel sales.
The Santa Marta conference arrived with an additional and unexpected accelerant: the war connected to Iran has been described as triggering a historic energy crisis that has shaken confidence in the reliability and affordability of oil and gas.. On the second day. Fatih Birol. head of the International Energy Agency. said in an interview that the conflict had broken global energy markets beyond repair. asserting that “the damage is done.” He forecast “permanent consequences” for the fossil fuel industry and suggested countries will increasingly turn to more secure. less costly renewable energy sources—potentially switching to electricity to power transportation and other sectors that have depended on fossil fuels.
Colombia’s environment minister, Irene Velez Torres, welcomed Birol’s assessment, tying it directly to national priorities.. “Our energy sovereignty as well as our climate survival require moving to other energy sources,” she said.. Her remarks also point to how the coalition’s argument is being made: climate action is not being presented solely as an environmental imperative. but as an energy strategy—one that aims to reduce vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.
Still. the Santa Marta pledges are just that—pledges—and the report stresses there is a wide gap between announcing phase-outs and executing them.. Yet it argues the coalition’s economic heft is difficult to dismiss. especially because several of the largest members. including Germany. the UK and France. and California. have already been making meaningful progress toward non-fossil energy systems.. A core purpose of the conference was to share practical lessons on how to phase out fossil fuels. rather than focus on drafting documents for external review.
Rachel Kyte. the UK special representative for climate. framed the conference as a search for working approaches and relationships among those willing to move.. “It’s about finding fellow travelers and learning from them — what’s working. what isn’t?” she said. describing a shift in emphasis from diplomatic paperwork to implementation questions.
Part of why the conference did not take center stage in U.S.. headlines may have to do with where its power lies: the report contends that its influence is largely economic rather than political.. That difference matters in the broader international climate architecture. where the story of progress has often been measured by how many governments sign legally binding agreements. and by what emissions targets.. Since climate change first entered the agenda through the UN “Earth Summit” in 1992. the dominant framing has frequently relied on government-by-government diplomacy.
The report argues that this politics-first approach has delivered limited results.. It points to the Paris Agreement as a standout exception. where countries agreed to keep the increase in global average temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts toward 1.5 degrees.. Yet. it notes that in many annual UN climate summits. elaborately negotiated outcomes have often failed to even mention the words “fossil fuels. ” even though phasing them out is described as the central challenge.
A key obstacle, according to the report, is a loophole built into how the UN process works: consensus decision-making.. Under UN rules. consensus does not mean unanimous. but it can still allow a small group of countries to block what a broad majority wants.. The report cites what it describes as such an outcome at COP30 in November. when Saudi Arabia led petrostates in blocking a call by 85 countries to begin drawing up a global roadmap to phase out fossil fuels.
Santa Marta. the report says. largely sidestepped the UN gridlock by operating outside the UN process and inviting only participants that had already demonstrated a serious commitment to moving beyond fossil fuels.. That design choice shaped participation—most notably excluding the United States and China.. Without turning the proceedings into a fight over whether fossil fuels need to be phased out. the meeting could focus on how countries might actually make the transition while accounting for jobs. businesses and communities that rely on fossil fuel production for wages. profits and tax revenues.
The report cautions that Santa Marta is only a first step in a world where fossil fuels make up roughly 80% of total energy use.. It uses the Netherlands as a case study of how policy contradictions can appear even among supporters of phase-out efforts.. In the same week the Netherlands co-sponsored the conference, the Dutch government approved plans to increase offshore gas production.. Minister van Veldhoven explained the rationale as a short-term response to supply disruptions tied to the Iran war. saying the Netherlands could obtain needed gas either by producing it domestically or buying it from Russia—and that importing from Russia would be worse for both energy security and climate outcomes.
This is where the stakes for the U.S.. become clearer.. Even within advanced economies, governments are being forced to manage immediate energy reliability while planning long-term emissions cuts.. Santa Marta’s approach—focused on disentangling energy systems gradually. with attention to economic and workforce realities—reflects that balancing act.. In practical terms. it may also influence how American leaders and policymakers interpret the limits of purely diplomatic progress and the potential for market-driven. coalition-based momentum.
In the report’s telling. Santa Marta offers plausible hope not because the transition is already complete. but because it suggests a new model of leadership.. For the first time in a long time. the report says. a critical mass of leaders is no longer waiting for fossil fuel-producing countries to agree to stop.. Instead, it describes a strategy of acting despite industry opposition by reducing demand rather than negotiating supply-side change.
The report ties that shift to public pressure as well. citing peer-reviewed studies that find 80% to 89% of people want their governments to take stronger climate action.. Velez said in the conference’s closing moments: “This is not the end.” She called it “the beginning of a new global climate democracy. ” capturing the report’s core message that climate action is being pursued as much through economics and coalition-building as through formal international agreements.
For U.S.. politics. the meeting’s most immediate relevance may be the signal it sends to Washington about how durable change can be pursued.. With California participating and major U.S.. trading partners and allies aligning around demand reductions. the implications extend beyond emissions targets into energy markets. industrial competitiveness. and the pace at which policy moves from promises toward enforceable outcomes—an arena where the federal government has faced years of volatility and where states increasingly test approaches on the ground.
Santa Marta fossil fuel pledge United States climate policy California climate action IEA energy crisis UN climate gridlock energy sovereignty Paris Agreement